There is a substantial percentage of people who watch the NCAAT that try to fill out a whole bracket and bet on every game.

1/3 fill out a whole bracket and pay attention to the full tournament.
1/3 just watch their school to compete.
1/3 catch/tune into a few games.

There is a lot more going on with the tournament than just the fanbases of blue blood schools watching their team in the NCAAT.

This is why I believe going to 80 and including RS winners could even draw in more viewers and create more cash all around.

(03-18-2022 10:17 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  There is a substantial percentage of people who watch the NCAAT that try to fill out a whole bracket and bet on every game.

1/3 fill out a whole bracket and pay attention to the full tournament.
1/3 just watch their school to compete.
1/3 catch/tune into a few games.

There is a lot more going on with the tournament than just the fanbases of blue blood schools watching their team in the NCAAT.

This is why I believe going to 80 and including RS winners could even draw in more viewers and create more cash all around.

If we expand all the spots that would be added would be at large spots. Period the end. They aren't going to 80 and adding RS winners from all the small conferences only. That's just stupid talk.

(03-18-2022 10:17 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  There is a substantial percentage of people who watch the NCAAT that try to fill out a whole bracket and bet on every game.

1/3 fill out a whole bracket and pay attention to the full tournament.
1/3 just watch their school to compete.
1/3 catch/tune into a few games.

There is a lot more going on with the tournament than just the fanbases of blue blood schools watching their team in the NCAAT.

This is why I believe going to 80 and including RS winners could even draw in more viewers and create more cash all around.

Eh - not really.

"More cash" for the total system isn't the goal.

Instead, the proper question (just as it is for CFP expansion) is, "Does this make more money for the SEC and Big Ten?" More cash where the majority goes to the non-power conferences isn't going to fly. The power conferences don't just want more money in and of itself. Instead, they want to maintain and/or increase the money *gap* (which I know is antithetical to the non-power conference partisans here, but it's totally true). Adding $5 million to the pockets to the SEC and Big Ten is meaningless if it means that it's adding $10 million to the pockets of the non-power conferences. They'd just rather keep the larger status quo money gap.

At the same time, the bracket is really as much about people that barely (or don't) watch the NCAA Tournament at all (e.g. the typical office pool) than it is about actual basketball fans. (I'd wager that upwards of 90% of NCAA Tournament watchers have filled out a bracket as they're committed fans.) Expanding the tournament doesn't actually help that at all. The vast majority of brackets don't even consider who wins the First Four and just groups them all as a single seed. Going to 80 teams simply creates more of those play-in games that are ignored for bracket purposes.

The 64-team bracket structure in and of itself is part and partial to why the bracket is so popular - it's large enough to have lots of different outcomes, but also manageable enough that the random HR person that hasn't ever watched a basketball game will still take a few minutes to enter into their company office pool. Adding in additional rounds could actually reduce the popularity of the bracket - keeping track of 96 teams likely crosses the Rubicon of being way too much for the typical bracket filler that has barely (or not) watched college basketball all year. K.I.S.S.

(03-18-2022 10:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 10:17 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  There is a substantial percentage of people who watch the NCAAT that try to fill out a whole bracket and bet on every game.

1/3 fill out a whole bracket and pay attention to the full tournament.
1/3 just watch their school to compete.
1/3 catch/tune into a few games.

There is a lot more going on with the tournament than just the fanbases of blue blood schools watching their team in the NCAAT.

This is why I believe going to 80 and including RS winners could even draw in more viewers and create more cash all around.

Eh - not really.

"More cash" for the total system isn't the goal.

Instead, the proper question (just as it is for CFP expansion) is, "Does this make more money for the SEC and Big Ten?" More cash where the majority goes to the non-power conferences isn't going to fly. The power conferences don't just want more money in and of itself. Instead, they want to maintain and/or increase the money *gap* (which I know is antithetical to the non-power conference partisans here, but it's totally true). Adding $5 million to the pockets to the SEC and Big Ten is meaningless if it means that it's adding $10 million to the pockets of the non-power conferences. They'd just rather keep the larger status quo money gap.

At the same time, the bracket is really as much about people that barely (or don't) watch the NCAA Tournament at all (e.g. the typical office pool) than it is about actual basketball fans. (I'd wager that upwards of 90% of NCAA Tournament watchers have filled out a bracket as they're committed fans.) Expanding the tournament doesn't actually help that at all. The vast majority of brackets don't even consider who wins the First Four and just groups them all as a single seed. Going to 80 teams simply creates more of those play-in games that are ignored for bracket purposes.

The 64-team bracket structure in and of itself is part and partial to why the bracket is so popular - it's large enough to have lots of different outcomes, but also manageable enough that the random HR person that hasn't ever watched a basketball game will still take a few minutes to enter into their company office pool. Adding in additional rounds could actually reduce the popularity of the bracket - keeping track of 96 teams likely crosses the Rubicon of being way too much for the typical bracket filler that has barely (or not) watched college basketball all year. K.I.S.S.

There really are no different outcomes. Its the same stuff every year as the system perpetuates it. There are always a few "real" upsets like St. Peter's over Kentucky but the so called upsets that occur 5 vs. 12 or 6 vs. 11 are challenger games to begin with.

At 68 its easy to dismiss the play ins as just a couple extra games but 80 would add new names and more variability to the field rather than just the same Top 40 and small conference CT winners every time out.

This is why I haven't completed a bracket since 2003 when I won an office pool of 20 people though I know more about college sports than anyone in my office. I'd rather see a couple of small conference teams get at it that haven't been on TV all year play than a game with a Top 40 hype job.

(03-18-2022 10:22 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 10:17 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  There is a substantial percentage of people who watch the NCAAT that try to fill out a whole bracket and bet on every game.

1/3 fill out a whole bracket and pay attention to the full tournament.
1/3 just watch their school to compete.
1/3 catch/tune into a few games.

There is a lot more going on with the tournament than just the fanbases of blue blood schools watching their team in the NCAAT.

This is why I believe going to 80 and including RS winners could even draw in more viewers and create more cash all around.

If we expand all the spots that would be added would be at large spots. Period the end. They aren't going to 80 and adding RS winners from all the small conferences only. That's just stupid talk.

If this is how everything college sports works than why do we have the following?

-G5 autobid to the CFP.
-Network TV deals for mid-majors.
-Any D1 conference permitted to call up from D2.
-Autobids to the NCAA championships for all D1 conferences.

Obviously there is an open evaluation of where mid majors exist and what access they should have rather than a closed door on anything not P5.

96 for the NCAAT has been discussed before and also including RS champs by those who have power and influence. An affirmative for those changes may not happen for a variety of reasons including the P5 not wanting it but they've been evaluated.

(03-18-2022 10:22 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 10:17 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  There is a substantial percentage of people who watch the NCAAT that try to fill out a whole bracket and bet on every game.

1/3 fill out a whole bracket and pay attention to the full tournament.
1/3 just watch their school to compete.
1/3 catch/tune into a few games.

There is a lot more going on with the tournament than just the fanbases of blue blood schools watching their team in the NCAAT.

This is why I believe going to 80 and including RS winners could even draw in more viewers and create more cash all around.

If we expand all the spots that would be added would be at large spots. Period the end. They aren't going to 80 and adding RS winners from all the small conferences only. That's just stupid talk.

What's stupid is playing meaningless exhibition games from November to March.

Small conferences: why play 20 conference games if one week is all that matters?
Big conferences: I'm sure glad Kentucky played all those exhibitions just to lose to a putrid team.

(03-18-2022 11:20 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 10:22 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 10:17 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  There is a substantial percentage of people who watch the NCAAT that try to fill out a whole bracket and bet on every game.

1/3 fill out a whole bracket and pay attention to the full tournament.
1/3 just watch their school to compete.
1/3 catch/tune into a few games.

There is a lot more going on with the tournament than just the fanbases of blue blood schools watching their team in the NCAAT.

This is why I believe going to 80 and including RS winners could even draw in more viewers and create more cash all around.

If we expand all the spots that would be added would be at large spots. Period the end. They aren't going to 80 and adding RS winners from all the small conferences only. That's just stupid talk.

If this is how everything college sports works than why do we have the following?

-G5 autobid to the CFP.
-Network TV deals for mid-majors.
-Any D1 conference permitted to call up from D2.
-Autobids to the NCAA championships for all D1 conferences.

Obviously there is an open evaluation of where mid majors exist and what access they should have rather than a closed door on anything not P5.

96 for the NCAAT has been discussed before and also including RS champs by those who have power and influence. An affirmative for those changes may not happen for a variety of reasons including the P5 not wanting it but they've been evaluated.

1) Don't really know and don't agree with it. Most likely a risk averse legal move.
2) Filler for TV networks. Cash outaly is small, this one is quite obvious.
3) Don't agree with this but conferences need to backfill
4) All conferences are part of the same NCAA body, plus this was done when money was much less. They wouldn't be allowed if it started tmrw.

Thanks for playing.

The reason most people ignore the play in games is that there’s not enough time to fill out a bracket and get it to your office organizer by end of the day Tuesday when then the games start.

If the bracket ever expanded further, I’d like to see the round of 64 pushed to Sat-Sun, which would be better for tv.

I also like the idea of spreading the round of 32 (16 games) over the following Wed-Thurs-Fri to optimize the number of games starting after 5:30pm EST.

For everyone continuing to push for regular season champs being in the NCAA Tournament: every single conference has the ability to award their auto-bid to that team already. However, they all instead choose to award it to their conference tournament champion in order to receive the Championship Week paycheck from ESPN and/or their other TV partners.

As I've stated elsewhere, I have sympathy for the players and coaches on the impacted teams themselves, but absolutely none for the conferences since *they* are the ones making the choice to elevate their tourney champs for a TV paycheck as opposed to their regular season champs. The power conferences should NOT be subsidizing that behavior with more bids. If anything, it should be going in the other direction of the power conferences getting more control, bids and revenue (and that's actually the much more likely outcome). Always remember that the non-power conferences are effectively already getting a revenue gift with the NCAA Tournament that they couldn't ever achieve on their own in the marketplace without subsidies from the power conferences. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever for the power conferences to be subsidizing them further. None.

(03-18-2022 11:57 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The reason most people ignore the play in games is that there’s not enough time to fill out a bracket and get it to your office organizer by end of the day Tuesday when then the games start.

If the bracket ever expanded further, I’d like to see the round of 64 pushed to Sat-Sun, which would be better for tv.

I also like the idea of spreading the round of 32 (16 games) over the following Wed-Thurs-Fri to optimize the number of games starting after 5:30pm EST.

This is just my opinion (and I'm not alone): I hate it. It's too much and completely devalues the entire regular season (which is already devalued already) in exchange for 2 extra days of tournament games. Once again, I'm completely against the power conferences subsidizing everyone else any further than what they're doing today.

(03-18-2022 11:37 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 11:20 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 10:22 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 10:17 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  There is a substantial percentage of people who watch the NCAAT that try to fill out a whole bracket and bet on every game.

1/3 fill out a whole bracket and pay attention to the full tournament.
1/3 just watch their school to compete.
1/3 catch/tune into a few games.

There is a lot more going on with the tournament than just the fanbases of blue blood schools watching their team in the NCAAT.

This is why I believe going to 80 and including RS winners could even draw in more viewers and create more cash all around.

If we expand all the spots that would be added would be at large spots. Period the end. They aren't going to 80 and adding RS winners from all the small conferences only. That's just stupid talk.

If this is how everything college sports works than why do we have the following?

-G5 autobid to the CFP.
-Network TV deals for mid-majors.
-Any D1 conference permitted to call up from D2.
-Autobids to the NCAA championships for all D1 conferences.

Obviously there is an open evaluation of where mid majors exist and what access they should have rather than a closed door on anything not P5.

96 for the NCAAT has been discussed before and also including RS champs by those who have power and influence. An affirmative for those changes may not happen for a variety of reasons including the P5 not wanting it but they've been evaluated.

1) Don't really know and don't agree with it. Most likely a risk averse legal move.
2) Filler for TV networks. Cash outaly is small, this one is quite obvious.
3) Don't agree with this but conferences need to backfill
4) All conferences are part of the same NCAA body, plus this was done when money was much less. They wouldn't be allowed if it started tmrw.

Thanks for playing.

I'm sorry but there have been moves and decisions to support small conferences.

Everything is not a P5 power grab. If it was they would have their own super division for all sports and walked away from all of it.

Sometimes the P5 will agree to things that are best for the sport and not in pure self interest.

I fill it out even though I don't know stink about 90% of the teams in the tournament, It's more random now also that top draft picks are no longer all stacked at UNC, Duke and Kentucky -- I think coach K's age and Cal's obsolete playing style are part of it, but also the rise in pro options like the G-League, NLP and Australian Stars-- meaning nobody has overwhelming talent.

So I expect to do badly. But by filling out the bracket I tend to watch the early few rounds, which otherwise I'd pass on.

Sid note: My son now totally passes, as he no longer thinks there is any value for evaluating NBA talent. And I kind of have to agree on that point. But I think he's the minority who is almost totally pro focused. He watches some prep, especially certain high AAU games (easy to get streaming) as that is where he looks at coming prospects. But that one year between prep and NBA is kind of lost in the noise.

(03-18-2022 01:03 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 11:37 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 11:20 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 10:22 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 10:17 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  There is a substantial percentage of people who watch the NCAAT that try to fill out a whole bracket and bet on every game.

1/3 fill out a whole bracket and pay attention to the full tournament.
1/3 just watch their school to compete.
1/3 catch/tune into a few games.

There is a lot more going on with the tournament than just the fanbases of blue blood schools watching their team in the NCAAT.

This is why I believe going to 80 and including RS winners could even draw in more viewers and create more cash all around.

If we expand all the spots that would be added would be at large spots. Period the end. They aren't going to 80 and adding RS winners from all the small conferences only. That's just stupid talk.

If this is how everything college sports works than why do we have the following?

-G5 autobid to the CFP.
-Network TV deals for mid-majors.
-Any D1 conference permitted to call up from D2.
-Autobids to the NCAA championships for all D1 conferences.

Obviously there is an open evaluation of where mid majors exist and what access they should have rather than a closed door on anything not P5.

96 for the NCAAT has been discussed before and also including RS champs by those who have power and influence. An affirmative for those changes may not happen for a variety of reasons including the P5 not wanting it but they've been evaluated.

1) Don't really know and don't agree with it. Most likely a risk averse legal move.
2) Filler for TV networks. Cash outaly is small, this one is quite obvious.
3) Don't agree with this but conferences need to backfill
4) All conferences are part of the same NCAA body, plus this was done when money was much less. They wouldn't be allowed if it started tmrw.

Thanks for playing.

I'm sorry but there have been moves and decisions to support small conferences.

Everything is not a P5 power grab. If it was they would have their own super division for all sports and walked away from all of it.

Sometimes the P5 will agree to things that are best for the sport and not in pure self interest.

Then explain why 1st 4 isn't all at larges playing?

Nothing is happening that would benefit only the smaller schools. Period, the end. The smaller conferences are getting 1 bid. Period, the end.

(03-18-2022 01:45 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 01:03 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 11:37 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 11:20 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 10:22 AM)stever20 Wrote:  If we expand all the spots that would be added would be at large spots. Period the end. They aren't going to 80 and adding RS winners from all the small conferences only. That's just stupid talk.

If this is how everything college sports works than why do we have the following?

-G5 autobid to the CFP.
-Network TV deals for mid-majors.
-Any D1 conference permitted to call up from D2.
-Autobids to the NCAA championships for all D1 conferences.

Obviously there is an open evaluation of where mid majors exist and what access they should have rather than a closed door on anything not P5.

96 for the NCAAT has been discussed before and also including RS champs by those who have power and influence. An affirmative for those changes may not happen for a variety of reasons including the P5 not wanting it but they've been evaluated.

1) Don't really know and don't agree with it. Most likely a risk averse legal move.
2) Filler for TV networks. Cash outaly is small, this one is quite obvious.
3) Don't agree with this but conferences need to backfill
4) All conferences are part of the same NCAA body, plus this was done when money was much less. They wouldn't be allowed if it started tmrw.

Thanks for playing.

I'm sorry but there have been moves and decisions to support small conferences.

Everything is not a P5 power grab. If it was they would have their own super division for all sports and walked away from all of it.

Sometimes the P5 will agree to things that are best for the sport and not in pure self interest.

Then explain why 1st 4 isn't all at larges playing?

Nothing is happening that would benefit only the smaller schools. Period, the end. The smaller conferences are getting 1 bid. Period, the end.

Nothing is ever in stone. That is bull.

(03-18-2022 02:07 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 01:45 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 01:03 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 11:37 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 11:20 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  If this is how everything college sports works than why do we have the following?

-G5 autobid to the CFP.
-Network TV deals for mid-majors.
-Any D1 conference permitted to call up from D2.
-Autobids to the NCAA championships for all D1 conferences.

Obviously there is an open evaluation of where mid majors exist and what access they should have rather than a closed door on anything not P5.

96 for the NCAAT has been discussed before and also including RS champs by those who have power and influence. An affirmative for those changes may not happen for a variety of reasons including the P5 not wanting it but they've been evaluated.

1) Don't really know and don't agree with it. Most likely a risk averse legal move.
2) Filler for TV networks. Cash outaly is small, this one is quite obvious.
3) Don't agree with this but conferences need to backfill
4) All conferences are part of the same NCAA body, plus this was done when money was much less. They wouldn't be allowed if it started tmrw.

Thanks for playing.

I'm sorry but there have been moves and decisions to support small conferences.

Everything is not a P5 power grab. If it was they would have their own super division for all sports and walked away from all of it.

Sometimes the P5 will agree to things that are best for the sport and not in pure self interest.

Then explain why 1st 4 isn't all at larges playing?

Nothing is happening that would benefit only the smaller schools. Period, the end. The smaller conferences are getting 1 bid. Period, the end.

Nothing is ever in stone. That is bull.

Nothing is going to be done that only helps smaller conferences. It's pretty simple. Need to be realistic. If expand by 12, all of them are going to be at larges. That is 100% what TV would want. They want teams like Texas A&M over Texas A&M-Corpus Christi 100%.

Made the proposal in the other thread, but how about this for 80 teams (I think 72 teams is more likely personally):

Autobids:
- 32 CT Champs
- Top 8-12 RS Champs not winning CT
At-Larges:
- Top 36-40 teams

(03-18-2022 05:53 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  Made the proposal in the other thread, but how about this for 80 teams (I think 72 teams is more likely personally):

Autobids:
- 32 CT Champs
- Top 8-12 RS Champs not winning CT
At-Larges:
- Top 36-40 teams

Top 8 RS champs would be fine.. 5 of those would be Illinois, Providence, Duke, Davidson, and Auburn. So you add Northern Iowa, North Texas, and maybe Towson. Then add 9 at larges.