I don't think the P5 ever split entirely. They know that the Butlers, George Masons, and VCUs of the world make them more than enough money to offset the small chance that they actually lose a championship to them.

I do think that when all is said and done, the P5 will try to dissolve the FBS and start their own football-only league. That's when the hits the fan.

(12-30-2015 02:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Adding another full round would complete change the fabric of the tournament, as it would require a third weekend, and would probably destroy the brackets

Not necessarily. I think if they ever add another round to March Madness, or expand the bracket to 80 or 96 or whatever, they'll do it by playing the first round on Tuesday or Wednesday (the current "First Four" days). Then there would be the round of 64 on Thursday/Friday, round of 32 on Saturday/Sunday, as they do now.

(12-30-2015 04:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 02:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Adding another full round would complete change the fabric of the tournament, as it would require a third weekend, and would probably destroy the brackets

Not necessarily. I think if they ever add another round to March Madness, or expand the bracket to 80 or 96 or whatever, they'll do it by playing the first round on Tuesday or Wednesday (the current "First Four" days). Then there would be the round of 64 on Thursday/Friday, round of 32 on Saturday/Sunday, as they do now.

I don't think I agree with that. It makes the main Madness "weekend" last from Tues - Sun.

Why not split it into two weekends? First round, first half Thur/Fri, second half Sat/Sun.

(12-30-2015 02:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And the "first round" (or First Four, as they're marketed) are always played in Dayton, OH. Come on. You know comparing that to the real March Madness is apples to oranges. Therefore, you know you can't use that as an example. Yet you accuse me of ignoring the facts.

Making the first round be the same thing as the second round would mean that we get two weekends of Madness, instead of just one weekend, before the tournament tapers off into the sweet sixteen and so on.

You can say what you want. It is proof that just any expansion will not draw the same number of viewers. I don't care what you call it, they called it the first round, it WAS an expansion, and it drew less. Got something to prove that expanding it would draw the same amount of viewers? Show it? Right now, the most comparable items, an additional round of the tournament, and conference tournaments, don't draw near the same.

(12-30-2015 04:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 02:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Adding another full round would complete change the fabric of the tournament, as it would require a third weekend, and would probably destroy the brackets

Not necessarily. I think if they ever add another round to March Madness, or expand the bracket to 80 or 96 or whatever, they'll do it by playing the first round on Tuesday or Wednesday (the current "First Four" days). Then there would be the round of 64 on Thursday/Friday, round of 32 on Saturday/Sunday, as they do now.

My contention is that anything that ruins brackets and bracket pools, ruins the tournament. I think most reasonable evidence supports this. It is invaluable free advertising (similar to Fantasy football and the NFL, probably moreso). This would do just that if you force brackets to be done in one day (notice current brackets do not include the play in games). OR, it requires you to expand to another weekend. Pretty much one or the other. Neither is really good. Certainly not good enough to make it worth while.

Plus a full extra round would require 64 additional games in two days, or the round to be spread out over 4 days. That is just to add one round. Adding two rounds... Ugh. Remember any partial round, less than an expansion of 32, means the extra games you are adding removes every top 8 seed in all four regions. Again not good if you think you are going to draw the same ratings.

(12-30-2015 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 04:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 02:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Adding another full round would complete change the fabric of the tournament, as it would require a third weekend, and would probably destroy the brackets

Not necessarily. I think if they ever add another round to March Madness, or expand the bracket to 80 or 96 or whatever, they'll do it by playing the first round on Tuesday or Wednesday (the current "First Four" days). Then there would be the round of 64 on Thursday/Friday, round of 32 on Saturday/Sunday, as they do now.

My contention is that anything that ruins brackets and bracket pools, ruins the tournament. I think most reasonable evidence supports this. It is invaluable free advertising (similar to Fantasy football and the NFL, probably moreso). This would do just that if you force brackets to be done in one day (notice current brackets do not include the play in games). OR, it requires you to expand to another weekend. Pretty much one or the other. Neither is really good. Certainly not good enough to make it worth while.

Plus a full extra round would require 64 additional games in two days, or the round to be spread out over 4 days. That is just to add one round. Adding two rounds... Ugh. Remember any partial round, less than an expansion of 32, means the extra games you are adding removes every top 8 seed in all four regions. Again not good if you think you are going to draw the same ratings.

The tipping point is whether CBS/Turner or any future rightsholder offers enough money to make a tournament of 80 or more teams enticing. Maybe it won't happen soon, if the networks are all having "buyer's remorse" about the high cost of sports programming. But maybe for the next TV contract, the networks will ask for more games just to justify paying as much as they are paying now.

Thinking in terms of what TV might want... enough games to play Tuesday and Wednesday evening starting at 7 pm ET, but no afternoon games on those days, so two TV windows each day, four TV channels, that's 16 games on Tuesday/Wednesday, and with the round of 64 starting on Thursday, it would mean an 80-team tournament.

(12-30-2015 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 02:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And the "first round" (or First Four, as they're marketed) are always played in Dayton, OH. Come on. You know comparing that to the real March Madness is apples to oranges. Therefore, you know you can't use that as an example. Yet you accuse me of ignoring the facts.

Making the first round be the same thing as the second round would mean that we get two weekends of Madness, instead of just one weekend, before the tournament tapers off into the sweet sixteen and so on.

You can say what you want. It is proof that just any expansion will not draw the same number of viewers. I don't care what you call it, they called it the first round, it WAS an expansion, and it drew less. Got something to prove that expanding it would draw the same amount of viewers? Show it? Right now, the most comparable items, an additional round of the tournament, and conference tournaments, don't draw near the same.

(12-30-2015 04:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 02:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Adding another full round would complete change the fabric of the tournament, as it would require a third weekend, and would probably destroy the brackets

Not necessarily. I think if they ever add another round to March Madness, or expand the bracket to 80 or 96 or whatever, they'll do it by playing the first round on Tuesday or Wednesday (the current "First Four" days). Then there would be the round of 64 on Thursday/Friday, round of 32 on Saturday/Sunday, as they do now.

My contention is that anything that ruins brackets and bracket pools, ruins the tournament. I think most reasonable evidence supports this. It is invaluable free advertising (similar to Fantasy football and the NFL, probably moreso). This would do just that if you force brackets to be done in one day (notice current brackets do not include the play in games). OR, it requires you to expand to another weekend. Pretty much one or the other. Neither is really good. Certainly not good enough to make it worth while.

Plus a full extra round would require 64 additional games in two days, or the round to be spread out over 4 days. That is just to add one round. Adding two rounds... Ugh. Remember any partial round, less than an expansion of 32, means the extra games you are adding removes every top 8 seed in all four regions. Again not good if you think you are going to draw the same ratings.

You know full well that your "proof" is false. It has been explained to you multiple times now that the First Four is in no way, shape or form an actual "expansion" of March Madness.

So you have no proof to the contrary. Do I have proof in support? Just common sense: if it works great one weekend, no reason doing the same thing for another weekend would be much less successful.

(12-30-2015 07:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 04:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 02:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Adding another full round would complete change the fabric of the tournament, as it would require a third weekend, and would probably destroy the brackets

Not necessarily. I think if they ever add another round to March Madness, or expand the bracket to 80 or 96 or whatever, they'll do it by playing the first round on Tuesday or Wednesday (the current "First Four" days). Then there would be the round of 64 on Thursday/Friday, round of 32 on Saturday/Sunday, as they do now.

My contention is that anything that ruins brackets and bracket pools, ruins the tournament. I think most reasonable evidence supports this. It is invaluable free advertising (similar to Fantasy football and the NFL, probably moreso). This would do just that if you force brackets to be done in one day (notice current brackets do not include the play in games). OR, it requires you to expand to another weekend. Pretty much one or the other. Neither is really good. Certainly not good enough to make it worth while.

Plus a full extra round would require 64 additional games in two days, or the round to be spread out over 4 days. That is just to add one round. Adding two rounds... Ugh. Remember any partial round, less than an expansion of 32, means the extra games you are adding removes every top 8 seed in all four regions. Again not good if you think you are going to draw the same ratings.

The tipping point is whether CBS/Turner or any future rightsholder offers enough money to make a tournament of 80 or more teams enticing. Maybe it won't happen soon, if the networks are all having "buyer's remorse" about the high cost of sports programming. But maybe for the next TV contract, the networks will ask for more games just to justify paying as much as they are paying now.

Thinking in terms of what TV might want... enough games to play Tuesday and Wednesday evening starting at 7 pm ET, but no afternoon games on those days, so two TV windows each day, four TV channels, that's 16 games on Tuesday/Wednesday, and with the round of 64 starting on Thursday, it would mean an 80-team tournament.

And again I ask: why try to stretch the first weekend of Madness even further into the week??

Why not start it the weekend before? Even if you only had two days instead of four, I'd much rather have them on Sat/Sun than the Tues/Wed before Madness.

(12-30-2015 10:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 02:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And the "first round" (or First Four, as they're marketed) are always played in Dayton, OH. Come on. You know comparing that to the real March Madness is apples to oranges. Therefore, you know you can't use that as an example. Yet you accuse me of ignoring the facts.

Making the first round be the same thing as the second round would mean that we get two weekends of Madness, instead of just one weekend, before the tournament tapers off into the sweet sixteen and so on.

You can say what you want. It is proof that just any expansion will not draw the same number of viewers. I don't care what you call it, they called it the first round, it WAS an expansion, and it drew less. Got something to prove that expanding it would draw the same amount of viewers? Show it? Right now, the most comparable items, an additional round of the tournament, and conference tournaments, don't draw near the same.

(12-30-2015 04:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 02:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Adding another full round would complete change the fabric of the tournament, as it would require a third weekend, and would probably destroy the brackets

Not necessarily. I think if they ever add another round to March Madness, or expand the bracket to 80 or 96 or whatever, they'll do it by playing the first round on Tuesday or Wednesday (the current "First Four" days). Then there would be the round of 64 on Thursday/Friday, round of 32 on Saturday/Sunday, as they do now.

My contention is that anything that ruins brackets and bracket pools, ruins the tournament. I think most reasonable evidence supports this. It is invaluable free advertising (similar to Fantasy football and the NFL, probably moreso). This would do just that if you force brackets to be done in one day (notice current brackets do not include the play in games). OR, it requires you to expand to another weekend. Pretty much one or the other. Neither is really good. Certainly not good enough to make it worth while.

Plus a full extra round would require 64 additional games in two days, or the round to be spread out over 4 days. That is just to add one round. Adding two rounds... Ugh. Remember any partial round, less than an expansion of 32, means the extra games you are adding removes every top 8 seed in all four regions. Again not good if you think you are going to draw the same ratings.

You know full well that your "proof" is false. It has been explained to you multiple times now that the First Four is in no way, shape or form an actual "expansion" of March Madness.

So you have no proof to the contrary. Do I have proof in support? Just common sense: if it works great one weekend, no reason doing the same thing for another weekend would be much less successful.

I will explain to you again, for the last time. Jist because YOU say something, doesn't make it true. In fact, more often then not, you stating something is generally is a clear indication it is false.At least based on your track record. This is actual evidence of what an expanded tournament, with no additional games for top teams, draw. There is no debate. They exist and we know how many people watch. Despite your opinion, it is the first round of the tournament, at least for the past decade, that was expanded, and it shows the audience did not stay the same. That is a fact, that is not up for debate. I don't give a hot damn how many times you say you say otherwise, your track record of knowing your facts is lower than just about every regular poster on this board.

Now unless you have actual facts or proof to back up your claim (you don't), then you can talk. But all you have is an off base opinion, that is not supported by actual fact that clearly contradict what you said, which was essentially "if you build it, they will come." Well they built it, and they didn't come.

(12-30-2015 10:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 07:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 04:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-30-2015 02:27 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Adding another full round would complete change the fabric of the tournament, as it would require a third weekend, and would probably destroy the brackets

Not necessarily. I think if they ever add another round to March Madness, or expand the bracket to 80 or 96 or whatever, they'll do it by playing the first round on Tuesday or Wednesday (the current "First Four" days). Then there would be the round of 64 on Thursday/Friday, round of 32 on Saturday/Sunday, as they do now.

My contention is that anything that ruins brackets and bracket pools, ruins the tournament. I think most reasonable evidence supports this. It is invaluable free advertising (similar to Fantasy football and the NFL, probably moreso). This would do just that if you force brackets to be done in one day (notice current brackets do not include the play in games). OR, it requires you to expand to another weekend. Pretty much one or the other. Neither is really good. Certainly not good enough to make it worth while.

Plus a full extra round would require 64 additional games in two days, or the round to be spread out over 4 days. That is just to add one round. Adding two rounds... Ugh. Remember any partial round, less than an expansion of 32, means the extra games you are adding removes every top 8 seed in all four regions. Again not good if you think you are going to draw the same ratings.

The tipping point is whether CBS/Turner or any future rightsholder offers enough money to make a tournament of 80 or more teams enticing. Maybe it won't happen soon, if the networks are all having "buyer's remorse" about the high cost of sports programming. But maybe for the next TV contract, the networks will ask for more games just to justify paying as much as they are paying now.

Thinking in terms of what TV might want... enough games to play Tuesday and Wednesday evening starting at 7 pm ET, but no afternoon games on those days, so two TV windows each day, four TV channels, that's 16 games on Tuesday/Wednesday, and with the round of 64 starting on Thursday, it would mean an 80-team tournament.

And again I ask: why try to stretch the first weekend of Madness even further into the week??

Why not start it the weekend before? Even if you only had two days instead of four, I'd much rather have them on Sat/Sun than the Tues/Wed before Madness.

The TV guys would like the extra weekend, but that would quash the last weekend of conference tournaments, or require the regular season to begin a week earlier. Starting on Tues/Wed is a minimal change that would only require all of the conference tournaments to conclude on Saturday instead of Sunday, if that.

The First Four would probably do much better ratings-wise if it was all at-large teams and no auto-qualifiers as it should be because the auto-bids, no matter how bad the league, earn the right to be in the Tournament and the at-larges are granted that right.

On the other hand, the fan in me knows the Tournament would be much more fun if there were fewer really bad teams that get hot and steal bids in their conference tournament and have effectively zero chance of beating a 1-seed. I'd be fine with either rationale totally but am not a fan of having two of each as the First Four.

(12-31-2015 02:49 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The First Four would probably do much better ratings-wise if it was all at-large teams and no auto-qualifiers as it should be because the auto-bids, no matter how bad the league, earn the right to be in the Tournament and the at-larges are granted that right.

On the other hand, the fan in me knows the Tournament would be much more fun if there were fewer really bad teams that get hot and steal bids in their conference tournament and have effectively zero chance of beating a 1-seed. I'd be fine with either rationale totally but am not a fan of having two of each as the First Four.

I am not a fan of that either, but I have heard that some of the teams like the First Four because they get a singular national TV game AND have a realistic shot of winning the game. Plus often those teams have been off for so long, even if they could manage to offset the number one seed, the sometimes two weeks off makes it hard on them.

So if they really feel that way, and are not just political, I guess I am fine with it. Otherwise, I am like you. The deserve the be in the main pot.

But what about one or the other instead of 2-and-2?

I was saying I agree; I think the First Four should be all at large teams. But if the 4 would be 16 teams, who to date have never won a game vs. the one seed, really like being in the play in games, I am fine with the two and two. If they are just saying that because it's the hand they were dealt, then like you, I don't like it: I'd prefer all at-large, since they are the teams who would have been left out otherwise. If they expand further, any additional play in games, to be, need to be all at large teams, because any more autobids, and you are dipping into would-be 15 seeds, who have already shown they can win. AND you'd be matching up 1 seeds with would-be 14 seeds, 2 seeds against would-be 13 seeds, who win a lot, and so on. It would change the dynamic of the tournament - not saying it's better or worse, because I could go either way, but it would change it nonetheless.

You improve the quality of the 16 and 15 seeds if you eliminate the lucky teams that steal auto bids. Knowing this, the Power schools will never let it happen.