OT: 96 Team NCAA Tournament 'Probable'
According to USA Today and Jim Delany the move to a 96 team tournament seems 'probable'. The NCAA board will discuss it further on April 29, and must apparently decide by this summer if they want to opt out of the last three years of their 11 year, $6 billion (!) agreement with CBS.
I know this has been discussed on here before, but for it to seem probably in my mind sucks. How about we just give everyone a trophy just for trying.
Link:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2010-03-30-ncaa-t…
First round games, under the traditional bracket scoring system, would be worth 1/2 point? Still a full point, since each round is usually worth 32 points? And would it count as the first win by a 16 seed ever when a 16 beats a 17?
but why would the NCAA want to opt out right now? With the economy as is, and *potentially* a big corporate writedown coming across the board to pay for the new healthcare plan (not being political, just stating facts), is it really feasible to think the NCAA's going to get more than the pro-rated $6B contract in the next three years? To me this doesn't make business sense.
From a basketball perspective, 96 team tourney... how would that work? Would you extend the first round sites to three games (i.e. have a bunch of 'play-in games' with seeds 1-8 in each region getting byes?) And what about the additional missed class time? Oh wait, sorry I forgot we're talking about Div I college athletics.... academics be damned.
CBS is hurting for cash, and there are at least a few other channels out there there that would gladly fork over a couple of billion for the rights to the tournament. Things like this don't become available too often. Plus, TV contracts almost never go down.
They'd have to give the top 32 teams a bye and then have the other 64 play a first-round game. That's pretty straightforward. The second round is a little murkier. Would the 1 seeds then play the 16/17 winner, or the 9/24 winner? You wouldn't be automatically pairing up the best four teams with the worst four teams anymore.
But only to 68 teams. I'd like to see 4 play-in games, except instead of seeing West Piedmont Fishing College play Savannah College of Art and Design, I'd like to see the bubble teams play, losers are available for NIT and CBI. That way, people would watch the play-in game, and there would be a few less tournament snubs.
let the tourney decide who the "last 8 in" at-large teams, they play 4 play-in games on the Wed or Thu of the 1st rd. Winners get the 10/11/12 seed they would have received anyway, losers get #1 seeds in the NIT. Teams that lose get at least one more home game to assuage losing the play-in game. Winners stay in the region to play the Friday 1st rd game.
SCAD.... you went there! (metaphorically, I hope. I mean, not that there's anything wrong with that.)
West Piedmont Fishing College I do not like your plan.
The shame of it is, if this year taught us anything it's how damn exciting the first two days can be in the tourney.
Adding teams just cheapens that.
No, my plan helps you. Because now instead of having to play to get into the tournament, you're actually in it, automatically! Now you can get rocked by the 1 seed without having to bother playing that extra game.
My one major beef with the current tourney is that I don't think any auto bid should have to play in a play-in game. Let the at-larges earn their presence in the actual tourney.
March 31st, 2010 at 10:35 AM ^
I agree that I'd rather just see a few more play-in games, but I also think that they should protect some of the smaller conferences from being overtaken by some mediocre Big 10 or SEC team. Your plan makes sense and I like it, but I also don't like the idea of letting some kids who just ran the table in their conference tournament to get a chance to play in the Big Dance be bludgeoned by some ACC team that blahhed its way through the season. You might get a few 16-to-1 upsets, but it would be something like Dayton beating Duke, not West Piedmont over Kansas.
March 31st, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^
I thik SCAD deserves a more reputable matchup than a fictional trade school. Maybe they could take on cross-town rival, Armstrong Atlantic State instead.
Does Cazzie Russell still coach SCAD?
...is that this could have a negative impact on the casual sports fans (e.g. my wife), who don't watch sports religiously but like to fill out a bracket at work and see how they do. It creates a lot of pre-tournament buzz and makes everyone feel like they're involved.
But it's hard to get my wife to fill out a bracket of 64 teams. At 96, I think she'll just say "have fun with that" and pass.
I think part of what makes the Super Bowl and NCAA tournament fun is that they find ways to make it exciting for everyone. My wife wants to watch the games with me because she has a vested interest (which is great because I get to, you know, WATCH the games).
I think the tournament will still be great but I think, in the interest of generating money. they're making a a brand-damaging decision that will cost them interest (and money) in the long run.
March 31st, 2010 at 10:32 AM ^
I am going to guess that the NCAA isn't really going to take into account the effect on illegal gambling
March 31st, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^
Countless newspapers and websites have completely legal competitions. And even the office pools with $5 buy-ins, though technically illegal, are small enough that nobody cares. But for the NCAA, that's huge for brand awareness and I guarantee you they are "taking into account" that.
March 31st, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^
Countless newspapers and websites have completely legal competitions. And even the office pools with $5 buy-ins, though technically illegal, are small enough that nobody cares. But for the NCAA, that's huge for brand awareness and I guarantee you they are "taking into account" that.
...is because of said illegal gambling; yeah, they probably should. Because if people don't watch as much, and their ratings go down, they don't get offered as much money, which is what they ARE concerned with.
Since they already let in teams that have no chance of winning the tournament, they might as well just let everyone in instead of playing conference tournaments or expanding to 96. They could reduce the field to 64 the first weekend at regionals that are actually regional, and have the normal 64 teams play the last three weeks.
Either that, or they could reduce the field back to the 24 best teams, which would basically consist of teams seeded sixth or better. Whatever the case, the Coppin States, etc, don't really need to be in the tournament on the strength of winning a crappy conference. The small-conference teams making it in is the main reason I think they should just let everyone in. That way, you know that no team was left out for a less-deserving team.
Let this be a warning to those of you who think you can get away with a six- or eight-team football playoff.
And that gives me pause about a football playoff. When it happens (and it ultimately will), it's pretty much guaranteed to have 16 or more teams in it.
96 is just dumb. Take 8 bubble teams outside of the tournament and place them against the 8 weakest conference winners. Then you would have a real game when a number 1 seed plays one of these number 16 seeded teams.
With 64 teams potentially playing a seventh game, how long do you think Glen Rice's tournament scoring record (184 points) would hold up?
I'd say it won't make any difference either way, because NONE of those 64 teams will ever play a seventh game.
March 31st, 2010 at 11:19 AM ^
A 7th game would require a team outside the top 32 to make the title game, but I suppose that's possible. If a team outside the top 32 makes even the final four, that is also at least an added opportunity for a 6 game total (as opposed to only two teams max now getting a potential 6th game, you could have 4 6 game teams and two 7s).
You make a good point. Only twice has a team seeded 9th-16th made the Final Four (LSU in 1986 and George Mason in 2006: both #11 seeds.) Neither went further. But there is the potential for more teams to get to the 6th (of 7) rounds.
Still, there's only one Glen Rice.
This is such a bad idea, but I see where the NCAA is coming from. More games = more sponsor dollars = happy NCAA. I just hate the ideal of a more watered down tourney. But I guess the almighty dollar has the final say.
March 31st, 2010 at 10:02 AM ^
I've enjoyed watching the NIT and always have. It's a mix of teams that are overlooked, teams a shadow of their former self, and teams that just had a bad year. After the 1st round you can tell who wants to be there and there is meaningful matchups that would never happen in the NCAA.
In a normal year who would think that Dayton could beat UNC? That's the championship game for the NIT and I am excited to see it. More quality basketball does not mean a 96 team tournament. 96 teams is more watered down basketball, that's all.
I'll grudingly go along with the playin game for each of the regionals, but the loser is stuck with a one-and-done where at the NIT they may keep playing and get experience in big pressure games.
March 31st, 2010 at 10:34 AM ^
If I were in charge of CBS sports, I'd be popping champagne corks right about now.
"Guys, great news! You know that RIDICULOUS contract we signed for college basketball that has us totally underwater?? We're going to save about $1.6 billion!! The NCAA is going to opt out!!"
The NCAA tournament is NOT a $550 million piece of property. There are 63 games and a college basketball game is about two hours long. So that's 126 hours of actual basketball on the air. Let's say that one third (which seems high) of each hour is dedicated to commercials. So, CBS gets 42 hours of ad space that have to sell.
The ratings for the first weekend of the tournament were pretty consistent with the ratings over the last decade. They pulled about a 5.0. In LA, the largest TV market, they got a 2.0. Last weekend, they got about 7.5 and this weekend, they'll get about a 10.
To put that in comparison to football, the Alamo Bowl got a 5.0. The Ohio-Marshall game in the Motor City Bowl was played during the week at something like 2 p.m. and got a 4.5. The second of the Rose Bowl a couple of years ago with USC and Penn State got a 12...and the score was 31-7 at the break.
College basketball's just not that popular to warrant spending $500 million on it. Plus, like others have said, you're actually going to be chasing viewers away with a tournament that lets EVERYONE in. And you're devaluing the regular season. It's already pretty bad right now. No one pays attention to college basketball during the first two months of the season anyway. You play ~27 games in a regular season and 1/3 of those are meaningless games against JV squads from the local high school. During conference play, you might have four or five teams that you really look forward to playing. You play them twice. Add in three or four other games that are interesting. So, half of your season is worthless. It has no value whatsoever.
With an expanded tournament, you're just throwing away the other half.
Bye bye, basketball. I'll put flowers on your grave.
CBS may want to put those corks back in the champagne bottles. You're forgetting about a big player on the scene here -- ESPN. Why do you think the NCAA is opting out of the contract? That's right, its time for a time honored TV bidding war.
And for ESPN, with all of its networks, you don't think its worth $500M+ per year? CBS can only make ad sale dollars on 1 block of games, but ESPN can do it for multiple games creating a better value for them. I wouldn't be surprised if the tourney gets a new home. Especially if it goes to 96 games.
The question is what basketball season out there truly has a relevant regular season?
March 31st, 2010 at 10:54 AM ^
for a few dollars, shall we?
This has ceased to be about sports and has become a shameless money grab. So much for rewards for a great season - hell, we'll just invite everyone!
Pity that they could not leave a great product alone!
NCAA - you don't enforce rules evenly and you destroy what works! You are a worthless monopoly. Just go away...
March 31st, 2010 at 11:03 AM ^
What a terrible idea.
March 31st, 2010 at 11:05 AM ^
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
There is a limit to how much time I can sit in front of a TV and watch bad teams get blown out, which will happen more and more if you go the 96 team route. For the occasional upset, which will be rare in the fist round if this new format is adopted, I have better things to do.
March 31st, 2010 at 11:17 AM ^
I am going to need a bigger budget at the JCB with 30 more tournament games.
Personally, i am not that offended by this.
What they should do is realize that everybody is already in the NCAA Tournament because of the conference tournaments. Bring those into the fold--for example, the MAC Sectional of the NCAA Tournamnet---and maybe create a better bridge from there to the final field of 64. That bridge could be what are now bubble teams going head to head in an elimination game or small school champions playing each other to get into the final 64 or something.
Rather than adding 32 more teams.....just invite everyone, reconfigure the league tournaments to a certain extent, maybe give the sure thing invites byes to some extent to get around those fields, I dont know.
But I'd rather have everyone in than just a 32-team add on.
March 31st, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
I'm guessing that we'll be seeing teams with losing records make the tourney now? Not to mention we'll start seeing teams, especially from the 'BCS' conferences, getting in with awful conference records. It's not that uncommon now for teams that are .500 in conference play to get in and in some years teams even get into the tourney with sub .500 conference records. Now teams that might be 7-11 or 6-12 in conference play might be getting into the tourney.
I'll be interested to see what the ratings are for the games on the first day when the 9-24 seeds are playing. I can't believe the ratings will be very good.
What really irks me is that one of the reasons they use for not implementing a college football playoff is the possibility the players might miss more class time. However, basketball players already miss more class time than football players and this will just add to the amount of class time some of the bball players miss.
March 31st, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^
But I'm not sure I can declare it a terrible tragedy. Yeah, 96 is a big number, and there are bound to be some below-average teams in the expanded tournament. But as it stands now, how many of the 64 teams actually have a real chance at winning the tournament? At most, maybe a third of them? That means there are already 40 or so teams that are in the tournament really just to be there, and maybe to get a win or two. So yes, adding 32 more teams will dilute the tournament, but let's not pretend it's not already significantly diluted (in terms of a championship tournament, which is what it's supposed to be), and has been so for 30 years now.
March 31st, 2010 at 12:49 PM ^
What irritates me is that there's always been a pretty specific standard for making the tournament, which will be horribly watered down now. It's almost like next year, there'll be an asterisk in front of 32 of those tournament teams. It won't mean what it used to mean. You used to still have to have a pretty successful season to get in.
And if anyone brings up the argument that the tournament is OK to expand because D-I has expanded, I say bullshit. The teams that have been expanding D-I aren't the teams that are going to benefit from this.
"I'll be interested to see what the ratings are for the games on the first day when the 9-24 seeds are playing. I can't believe the ratings will be very good."
When the ACC expanded to 12 teams, the conference tournament went from having very solid first-day ratings to having non-existent ratings for the games involving 9-12 teams. The ratings for the second day (what was previously the first day) even took a bit of a hit.
"What really irks me is that one of the reasons they use for not implementing a college football playoff is the possibility the players might miss more class time."
The reason they won't implement a college football playoff is because the bowls make a TON of money. A playoff would kill the bowl system and would be less profitable for the networks.
College football fans REALLY want to see a playoff. But they have nothing more to offer the networks. You either watch a game or you don't. It's like you can become a super-viewer. People watch the bowls. People like the bowls. They will watch a playoff in a similar fashion.
BUT...the bowls are not dependant on one another. A tournament is. A playoff system would offer a gradually declining number of games. Right now, once we get into bowl system, they are stacked in such a way to provide consistent blocks of time that the networks can sell. Playoffs wouldn't provide that. Plus, there's nothing to make up for the loss of the bowls. You aren't going to have a 16-team tournament AND the Motor City Bowl. It's either/or.
Plus, a playoff system is great for Michigan or Ohio State. It's terrible for Purdue. And there are a lot more Purdues than there are Michigans. The regular season in football counts for SO much. It's SO important and SO popular that you would never do anything to trash that. Hell, even GAMEDAY gets ratings. They usually average something like 3.5. They ALMOST get the equivalent of a first-round NCAA tournament. Why would Disney ever ever EVER mess with that?
Careful with the generalizations. Not all fans want a playoff, and not all who are favorable to the idea of a playoff REALLY want it.
When the ACC expanded to 12 teams, the conference tournament went from having very solid first-day ratings to having non-existent ratings for the games involving 9-12 teams. The ratings for the second day (what was previously the first day) even took a bit of a hit.Hmmm...sort of. I assume by "first day" you mean the first day where the whole conference was actually playing and not the 8-9 play-in game. So that's kind of apples-to-oranges. Overall the ACC benefits simply by gobbling up TV time on Thursday that used to be devoted to whatever was on that wasn't the ACC tournament. But yeah, Friday is watered down a bit because there are more non-basketball markets involved than before.
Dan Patrick asked his fans today about a playoff for football and 95 percent voted in favor of it.
When you're talking about things like ratings, you have to talk about generalizations. No. All fans don't want it. But I feel safe in assuming that at least 75 percent do.
None of it really matters. Until you can show that a playoff would be MORE profitable than the current system, you aren't going to get it.
you're not talking about ratings. You're talking about individual opinions, and that's something that doesn't need to be so generalized. I understand that your assessment of the situation was based on rating, but you started it all by saying college football fans REALLY want a playoff. And now you're saying that's a credible statement because 95% percent of Dan Patrick's listeners want it. That doesn't work.
A quick google search uncovered a late December 2009 poll -- a serious poll, not a Dan Patrick poll -- that indicated 63% of fans are in favor of a playoff. I'm sure the number isn't exactly the same these days, but I'm not so confident that the numbers have shifted dramatically enough to make generalized "college football fans REALLY want" statements.
playing musical chairs with enough chairs so everyone can sit down. everyone's a winner!! (simpsons joke, not mine).
Let the rape of college athletics continue...
Cash moves everything around me, C.R.E.A.M., get the money, dolla dolla bill y'all...