I like expanding to 72. But make a rule that the playin round can only be At Larges. The 13-16 seeds are full of Automatic Qualifiers to be sacraficed to Top 3 seeds.

The Dayton and proposed Vegas Play In Round should be the 9-12 seeds. These would be the last selections from Power 10 Conferences(P5, Big East, AAC, A10, MWC, and WCC)

Those years where St.Mary's or Rhode Island sat at home while a 17 win Syracuse or Illinois got in would be decided on the court with a National audience.

Then the next game they play a 5-8 seed.

(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're right, of course, Wedge. But let's be more specific. The current "play-in" teams were not added as "rewards" for anybody but the media presenters and their bulk advertisers. These are marginally interesting games, and the networks gambled that they might draw an audience. Who knows if they make money? If they actually do earn some ratings and the advertisers are willing to buy them as part of a bundle, that would determine whether or not an expanded field is in order. Has nothing to do with the worthiness of the bubble teams

(02-01-2020 06:32 PM)33laszlo99 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're right, of course, Wedge. But let's be more specific. The current "play-in" teams were not added as "rewards" for anybody but the media presenters and their bulk advertisers. These are marginally interesting games, and the networks gambled that they might draw an audience. Who knows if they make money? If they actually do earn some ratings and the advertisers are willing to buy them as part of a bundle, that would determine whether or not an expanded field is in order. Has nothing to do with the worthiness of the bubble teams

The current first four games draw about 1 million viewers each for the 16 vs. 16 matchups and between 1.5 and 2 million viewers for the at-large games. (source) That's not a bad audience for TruTV, but if they add more Tue/Wed games, then they're either putting games on starting at noon ET, where there will be even fewer viewers, or putting games on TBS or TNT where those games would be displacing decently-watched regular programming. Turner might televise those games if they are played, but if they're not getting a big ratings bump over regular programming, it's worth at most a small amount of money to them.

That's not the reason for my comment above, though. The reason is that the powers-that-be are not going to change to a tournament format that requires 16 at-large teams -- almost half of all the at-large teams in the field -- to play on Tue/Wed. That's so many at large teams that teams either just outside or just inside the top 25 would have to play on Tuesday or Wednesday. I don't see the decisionmakers doing that.

(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.

There's a simple fix to the bolded problem. Do away with all automatic qualifiers. Then it doesn't matter how many conferences there are, and all the current one-bid leagues could organize themselves in ways that make sense without the artificial carrot of "free" NCAAT money for schools that only belong in D-I for that mercenary purpose.

(02-01-2020 01:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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.

I think how the 12/13 seeds do, especially when they are mid-majors, demonstrates a clear bias against non-power conference teams. There are 2nd or 3rd teams in those conferences (like frequently in the MVC who doesn't get many at large bids anymore) better than that 10th team in the ACC. This isn't football where you have 22 players and a lot of injuries to deal with. The gap between the majors and the next tier is not so big.

(02-01-2020 02:44 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(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.

Virtually every .500 (in conference) power conference team gets in now.

(02-01-2020 06:32 PM)33laszlo99 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're right, of course, Wedge. But let's be more specific. The current "play-in" teams were not added as "rewards" for anybody but the media presenters and their bulk advertisers. These are marginally interesting games, and the networks gambled that they might draw an audience. Who knows if they make money? If they actually do earn some ratings and the advertisers are willing to buy them as part of a bundle, that would determine whether or not an expanded field is in order. Has nothing to do with the worthiness of the bubble teams

The reason they have 12 seeds play in is because they knew if they had only the bottom of the field, ratings would be miniscule.

If you added 4 extra and went to 72 last year you’d have TCU (who finished 7-11 in the B12), UNCG, Alabama (18-15, who finished 8-10 in the SEC) and Indiana (who at one point lost 12 of 13). Could be more convincing.

But they’d make money regardless. And if we get that extra league, it is gonna happen. You could have two DHs in Dayton and Vegas. Say a 6:30 ET and a 9 in Dayton, 7:30 and 10 in Vegas. Even on TBS, First Four games would draw better than the 569th rerun of the Big Bang Theory.

The games that air on truTV during the day on Thursday and Friday are usually forgettable teams. Only 597K watched Oklahoma-Ole Miss on Friday afternoon over there. Last year the highest rated NCAA game on tru was Baylor/Syracuse at just over 2M.

Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Ohio State and the Michigan schools first round games almost always air on CBS. Because of the time zones and getting casual fans.

(02-01-2020 09:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 01:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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.

I think how the 12/13 seeds do, especially when they are mid-majors, demonstrates a clear bias against non-power conference teams. There are 2nd or 3rd teams in those conferences (like frequently in the MVC who doesn't get many at large bids anymore) better than that 10th team in the ACC. This isn't football where you have 22 players and a lot of injuries to deal with. The gap between the majors and the next tier is not so big.

12 seeds are 50-90 in the first round, but only 23 of those 50 wins were non-power teams beating a power conference team. Most of the rest were power conference teams winning as 12 seeds (e.g., Oregon made the sweet 16 last year as a 12 seed), with a few games in which a non-power 12 beat a non-power 5.

12 vs. 5 data is here https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...tournament and here https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ch-madness .

(02-01-2020 06:32 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  You're right, of course, Wedge. But let's be more specific. The current "play-in" teams were not added as "rewards" for anybody but the media presenters and their bulk advertisers.

But to be clear, what they wanted were the at-large schools. If they could have the 64 tournament with the current number of at-large schools, based on the bottom eight conferences being seeded into two four team groups playing a three game round robin with the group winners going to the Tourney, they'd take it ... but they would leave the media contract for that Cinderella wannabe group stage to second or third tier media companies.

The current system is the result of stakeholders with competing interests pushing in multiple directions. One of the stakeholders are those lower tier conferences, whose members also have votes in the division and the NCAA as a whole. A play-in game for the bottom four that counts as for a Tourney unit was a workable compromise since any of them could hope to have a conference champion that is not in the bottom four. There's no guarantee they buy the bottom eight having to play in.

You’d think that expansion of the NCAAs is at least on the table after this pandemic, since they lost an entire year of NCAA revenue, and in the worst-case scenario, could be down an entire year of college sports.

I’d think at least an expansion to 72 is possible, maybe to 96 like what almost happened a decade ago. 128 perhaps is even on the table. This might be temporary, only a year or two, but an expansion to 72 could be permanent.

(07-15-2020 09:09 AM)sctvman Wrote:  You’d think that expansion of the NCAAs is at least on the table after this pandemic, since they lost an entire year of NCAA revenue, and in the worst-case scenario, could be down an entire year of college sports.

I’d think at least an expansion to 72 is possible, maybe to 96 like what almost happened a decade ago. 128 perhaps is even on the table. This might be temporary, only a year or two, but an expansion to 72 could be permanent.

I would love an expansion (and the death of those EIEIO tournaments), but the networks have to be willing to pay more money or it won't happen.

68 seems about right. Although I do wish a few of the truly bottom tier conferences would drop back to D2.

(07-15-2020 09:13 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 09:09 AM)sctvman Wrote:  You’d think that expansion of the NCAAs is at least on the table after this pandemic, since they lost an entire year of NCAA revenue, and in the worst-case scenario, could be down an entire year of college sports.

I’d think at least an expansion to 72 is possible, maybe to 96 like what almost happened a decade ago. 128 perhaps is even on the table. This might be temporary, only a year or two, but an expansion to 72 could be permanent.

I would love an expansion (and the death of those EIEIO tournaments), but the networks have to be willing to pay more money or it won't happen.

I am FOR expansion. I am FOR shorter conference tournaments - not everyone "deserves" a shot to win the auto-bid.

I wouldn't mind an increase in the number of the teams, but if the increase just allows more P5 teams, what's the point?

I could go for a cap on the number of teams from a conference, like 5 which would get more midmajor teams into the tournament. All of those 1 bid conferences could then be at least a two-bid conference.

(02-01-2020 07:27 PM)ken d 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.

There's a simple fix to the bolded problem. Do away with all automatic qualifiers. Then it doesn't matter how many conferences there are, and all the current one-bid leagues could organize themselves in ways that make sense without the artificial carrot of "free" NCAAT money for schools that only belong in D-I for that mercenary purpose.

Another option here, to throw a bone to the one-bid leagues, would be to award every conference one tournament unit, whether or not they have a team selected for the 64 team field. That would reduce the value of each unit slightly, but for the multi-bid leagues that's offset by getting more bids.

(02-01-2020 05:54 PM)spenser Wrote:  I like expanding to 72. But make a rule that the playin round can only be At Larges. The 13-16 seeds are full of Automatic Qualifiers to be sacraficed to Top 3 seeds.

The Dayton and proposed Vegas Play In Round should be the 9-12 seeds. These would be the last selections from Power 10 Conferences(P5, Big East, AAC, A10, MWC, and WCC)

Those years where St.Mary's or Rhode Island sat at home while a 17 win Syracuse or Illinois got in would be decided on the court with a National audience.

Then the next game they play a 5-8 seed.

I love the idea that only at large teams should be in the "First Four" or "play in" round. The NCAA can call it part of the NCAA Tournament but most of us old people don't consider the real tournament beginning until the round of 64. To me it seems heartless to see a team win a conference tournament and have to win another game just to make the round of 64. If you're a MEAC or NEC team, you want your NCAA Tournament to be at a real NCAA site vs. Duke or Kentucky, not vs. some other no name team in Dayton where no one will watch. I also don't like those teams being credited with "wins". Make it that if you lose in the preliminary round you didn't even make the tournament. A play in winner that loses in the round of 64 isn't "better" than a first round loser that qualified to the NCAA without having to play in a play in game.

It only expands if more money.

Frankly more schools will likely push the P5 closer to a split. If it's say two more autobids, then I think it only expands 4 teams, with First four becoming first eight, with two more at-large (going most often to P5 or Big East schools).

There is already over saturation of Day One and Two games with 16. Nobody watches them all, and frankly 4 is about the limit anyone can. This means there is no more money to be had in the first round, as advertising value is reduced with more dilution. Adding a second first four/eight venue could add enough revenue to pay for 4 more credits ... maybe. But it's a break even at best situation.

I honestly think the P5 split is more likely. Probably dragging along the Big East. That is already enough for a 36 team tournament (32 with a first four) with a 16 teams NIT type tournament (8 hosted first round games, final 8 go to Orlando to play at the Mouse House on ESPN -- cheaper and simplified). That would have basically the same number of major conference teams in post season tournaments as today (they average about 51 the last six years); so would have minimal impact on coach bonuses.

(07-15-2020 01:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  There is already over saturation of Day One and Two games with 16. Nobody watches them all, and frankly 4 is about the limit anyone can. This means there is no more money to be had in the first round, as advertising value is reduced with more dilution. Adding a second first four/eight venue could add enough revenue to pay for 4 more credits ... maybe. But it's a break even at best situation.

A 128-team tournament with 8 regions of 16 can be split as a Thursday-Sunday 1st Round -- with 16 games each day -- meaning there's no more overlap than before.

You'd have 8 sites with 8 games each -- either 4 Thu/Sat or 4 Fri/Sun.

Then you'd operate the 2nd/3rd rounds (64/32) the following week the same you operate the 1st/2nd rounds today, so on and so forth.

So you end up adding 8 sites to milk money from in the 1st Round, as hosting two quadrupleheaders -- one on the weekend -- makes it lucrative.

If TV ever would be willing to pay more $, the logistics workout without diluting the tv audience for games.

Bruce has it right in post #50 in this thread: There are too many stakeholders with different interests.

The "little guys" would love it if every low-major conference's tournament champ got an automatic ticket to the first Thursday/Friday, even when it's a team that finished 9th in the regular season in the 32nd best conference and just got lucky for 3 days in a conference tournament.

But the high-major leagues won't agree to put more at-large teams on Tuesday/Wednesday unless it's part of a massive expansion of the tournament. CBS and Turner would agree. TV doesn't want early elimination of even *more* "names" that casual fans might recognize, and certainly don't want to pay more for getting fewer "name" teams playing on the first weekend where they start to make their money (even though the last two weekends produce the highest ratings).