NCAA Final Four - on TNT?

[tjgopher]

It's a possibility.

Also, note, that it appears moving forward the assumption will be an expanded NCAA field. I know I'm in the minority, but I'm okay with 96 teams in (hoping not to get too ripped for my stance).

 

[SelectionSunday]

96 will be the number

The expansion to 96 is going to happen, there's no doubt about that in my mind. Everything coming from the NCAA is leading me to that conclusion. They're acting like it's not definitive, but it's clear to me they're getting the information out there to "brace" people (those in favor of keeping the tournament as is) for the inevitability of tournament expansion. The power coaches (i.e. Coach K, Boeheim, etc.) support the expansion, therefore it will happen.

On the bright side, in the future if the Gophers have another (disappointing) season like this one, they'll still make the tournament. The Coach K's and Boeheims of the world can paint it otherwise, saying it will help the small schools, but make no mistake tournament expansion will benefit the big guys much more than the smaller programs. With 96 teams, a "Big 6" program will really have to suck to not make the tournament. Basically, probably all they'll have to do is go .500. Should that be rewarded?

 

[GophersInIowa]

Not a fan of expanding it to 96 teams. In the Big Ten, 8 or 9 teams would probably make it every year. It'll be like that in the other big conferences as well. Unless they came up with a rule that you must finish at .500 or better in conference play to get in.

 

[tjgopher]

The expansion to 96 is going to happen, there's no doubt about that in my mind. Everything coming from the NCAA is leading me to that conclusion. They're acting like it's not definitive, but it's clear to me they're getting the information out there to "brace" people (those in favor of keeping the tournament as is) for the inevitability of tournament expansion. The power coaches (i.e. Coach K, Boeheim, etc.) support the expansion, therefore it will happen.

On the bright side, in the future if the Gophers have another (disappointing) season like this one, they'll still make the tournament. The Coach K's and Boeheims of the world can paint it otherwise, saying it will help the small schools, but make no mistake tournament expansion will benefit the big guys much more than the smaller programs. With 96 teams, a "Big 6" program will really have to suck to not make the tournament. Basically, probably all they'll have to do is go .500. Should that be rewarded?

It is a fine line, but here's why I like going to 96:

1) I like the upsets. To me, that is the entire reason we get caught up in March Madness. Will Princeton, Valpo or Hampton or Santa Clara or someone else pull off the upset. Will George Mason make the Final Four? Will Davidson go to the Sweet 16? Or Bradley or UNI? With 96, there will be more of a chance for that. You'll get a few more smaller schools in there (MVC, MWC, etc., that are capable.). That's good. It also puts a few "name" schools in there that are capable of getting beat. For example, let's say UNC gets in this year because it is a field of 96. They could lose to Wichita State. How great would that be?

2) On the other hand, there are teams out there that could make a run that get left out. No one can tell me that last year Penn State could not have made a run the way Battle and Cornley were playing. If they got in the right bracket and had a pairing that was okay, they could have gone to the Sweet 16. They weren't even in the field. A field of 96 will allow capable teams of possibly getting the most out of their capabilities. Of course, that means that same UNC team that might lose to Wichita State could run to the Final Four, too, and that makes for an interesting story, too.

3) It makes the field MORE competitive. I think you'll simply get more competitive games as a whole. Sure, you'll get the blowouts early, but there will be tons of great games, down to the wire, because some really good RPI teams (in the 40s and 50s) that normally are out of the field are now in the field. That makes it tough! It will mean more to get through a field of 96 with those teams added in than a field of 65 with a lot of dogs in there. You win a national title out of a field of 96, you've earned it.

4) In actuality, the field of 65 is too small. Percentage-wise, it includes the smallest percentage of teams almost ever. I think I read when the field was expanded to 64 back in the 1980s, there were still not that many DI teams. Now there are over 330. 96 is fine.

5) It simply means MORE basketball in an important setting. What's not to like? What's so wrong with that? I think many of us get caught up in this faux utopia that the tourney is perfect. Why? What makes 64 the magic number? Just because that's what it has been? I understand there are legit reasons to leave it at 64, but I can't stand the reasoning that "the tourney is perfect, leave it alone, why mess with it?". My question is - why not mess with it? If you can offer 16 additional games to be played in March in a meaningful manner with more possibilities for great stories, great upsets, Cinderellas, etc., I'm in favor of it. Why not? Don't be resistant to change just because you think change is bad.

6) And, SS, this is where I think you'll agree with me. A field of 96 would allow coaches to free themselves of the non-conference "noose" of staying away from tough games. A field of 96 would take some of that risk away. You wanna play Kansas and Memphis and UCLA, etc.? Here you go. Yet, I think those non-conference games would be every bit as entertaining as ever.

Okay, I didn't mean for this thread to get into this debate, I was simply linking an article that shows we might have the Final Four on cable TV at some point. Carry on.

 

[BleedGopher]

Moving to 96 teams will make the regular season essentially meaningless for the major conference schools.

My only hope is that it will motivate coaches like Tubby and Esposito to improve our non-conference schedule as a loss here or there won't have as much impact.

Go Gophers!!

 

[SelectionSunday]

If they do it, play first round at home sites

You make good points. Obviously, I'm not in favor of the expansion (I could live with the expansion to 68), but when it comes to fruition I'm sure I'll adapt just fine.

My thought would be, if they go to 96, those first-round games should be played at home sites, not neutral sites. I just can't see many people attending those games without the benefit of a home team. Even now, there are lots of first- and second-round games that have terrible attendance. Of course, that doesn't mean the games won't be good, but it's not like people are lining up across the country to see early rounds of the NCAA Tournament. That problem would only increase with a "play-in" round simply to get to 64.

Regarding the nonconference scheduling. ... if it gets us a few quality November-December games at The Barn, that would definitely be a plus. However, I, for one, will not hold my breath. There's always an excuse as to why they can't schedule anybody good at home. I'm sure they'd come up with another one.

 

[Zeppelin Gopher]

I already struggle with the somewhat meaningless nature of the college basketball regular season compared to that of college football.

Moving from 65 to 96 will make it worse.

 

[howeda7]

I already struggle with the somewhat meaningless nature of the college basketball regular season compared to that of college football.

Moving from 65 to 96 will make it worse.

Big time. One of the reasons I can't stand NBA basketball is that the regular season is meaningless. The top teams with a legit shot can coast through most of the season knowing they just need to stay in the top 4. And the teams at the bottom fighting for the last spots have no shot anyway. It now won't really matter whether you finish 3rd in the Big 10 or 9th. Either way, just get to 17-13 or so and you're in.

And it will drive the casual fan away from following the NCAA tournament. Doris in Accounting and Joe in Finance who only really start paying attention when the tournament comes around aren't going to fill out an NCAA sheet in the office pool anymore if it's a 96 team monstrosity. The casual fans that make March Madness what it is will fall by the wayside and the ratings will plummet. They make more money, at least initially, but they are being very foolish. Ironically, if they would go to a play-off in football, they would also increase fan interest while perhaps taking slightly less money. In both cases they are choosing the money. It is sad.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Stupid

What is the lowest seed ever to win it all? Was it Villanova in '85 as like an 8 or 9 seed?

That means no team seeded lower than the mid 30's overall has ever won the title. What does that say for those teams seed 66-96? Those teams don't have a chance in hell so why even include them?

 

[tjgopher]

And it will drive the casual fan away from following the NCAA tournament. Doris in Accounting and Joe in Finance who only really start paying attention when the tournament comes around aren't going to fill out an NCAA sheet in the office pool anymore if it's a 96 team monstrosity. The casual fans that make March Madness what it is will fall by the wayside and the ratings will plummet.

I know I'm in the minority, but I just don't see those things happening. If anything, adding additional teams might get more people to fill out an office bracket. Maybe your local team is now in the field. Example - if the Gophers are in - all kinds of people fill out sheets in Minnesota. If not, many don't.

And, you really think having to choose 16 additional games will force Doris or Joe say "to hell with it?" It is 16 additional games. That's it. That's not a lot to ask. Not to mention, some of those 16 additional games will be really good match-ups that will draw interest. As an example, if the field were 96 this year, you could see preliminary games between UNC-UConn and MN-Florida and Washington-Illinois, etc. It won't be Peabody State vs. Baltimore County. Interest will be there and I'm guessing some of the preliminary games will have some of the higher ratings.

I do agree about watering down the regular season. That is a drawback, although I think it can be offset because a larger NCAA field will lessen the risk of high-caliber non-conference games, thus encouraging more teams to play a more aggressive non-conference schedule. With a 96-team field, Tubby is much more inclined to bring in a Kansas or UCLA or Texas, etc. And, those teams might be more inclined to come here, too. That would be worthwhile to me.

 

[tjgopher]

What is the lowest seed ever to win it all? Was it Villanova in '85 as like an 8 or 9 seed?

That means no team seeded lower than the mid 30's overall has ever won the title. What does that say for those teams seed 66-96? Those teams don't have a chance in hell so why even include them?

Heck, let's just narrow it to 32 teams then. Better yet, just 16. Why would we want to attempt to be entertained with a few additional basketball games anyway? Let's trim it as lean as we can so we don't have to be bored with any more NCAA tournament games with possible great upsets and storylines, etc. That would stink.

Not to mention, the addition of those mid-pack major conference teams will lead to a stronger competition. Much more opportunity for upper seeded teams to lose to those major conference teams. If it went to 96-teams, I think you'd see fewer one-seeds make it to the Final Four. Teams like Penn State and Notre Dame and Florida last year would have a chance to do some damage in a field of 96. It makes it entertaining and interesting.

Again, I realize I'm in the minority, just trying to counter some points.

 

[howeda7]

I know I'm in the minority, but I just don't see those things happening. If anything, adding additional teams might get more people to fill out an office bracket. Maybe your local team is now in the field. Example - if the Gophers are in - all kinds of people fill out sheets in Minnesota. If not, many don't.

And, you really think having to choose 16 additional games will force Doris or Joe say "to hell with it?" It is 16 additional games. That's it. That's not a lot to ask. Not to mention, some of those 16 additional games will be really good match-ups that will draw interest. As an example, if the field were 96 this year, you could see preliminary games between UNC-UConn and MN-Florida and Washington-Illinois, etc. It won't be Peabody State vs. Baltimore County. Interest will be there and I'm guessing some of the preliminary games will have some of the higher ratings.

I do agree about watering down the regular season. That is a drawback, although I think it can be offset because a larger NCAA field will lessen the risk of high-caliber non-conference games, thus encouraging more teams to play a more aggressive non-conference schedule. With a 96-team field, Tubby is much more inclined to bring in a Kansas or UCLA or Texas, etc. And, those teams might be more inclined to come here, too. That would be worthwhile to me.

You might have a point on the 'more local teams in it' part of the overall draw. But the main allure of the NCAA tournament is the gambling/bracket pools. Anyone who denies that is kidding themselves. Making the tournament bigger/longer will drive away many of the casual participants, IMO. Is the tournament now starting on Tuesday? Good luck getting anyone to turn them in by then. Most won't bother with the whole thing anymore.

There is also such a thing as viewer fatigue. It already goes for 3 solid week-ends. Personally, the first week-end of the NCAA tournament is my favorite week-end of the year, and I take Thursday and Friday off if I can pracitcally do so. Now you're going to add a 4th week-end? Or have 32 teams playing Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday? Either way you'll have viewer fatigue by the time the thing winds down.

But all of that is secondary to me to the fact that it severely damages the regular season. In a year like this year, we might be on the bubble even with 96. But think of a team like last year. We were not good enough to get a bye, but would have been safely in for the last few weeks. The last several regular season games would have been close to meaningless. And I already dislike the conference tournaments in the major conferences, they would be absolutely pointless now.

 

[tjgopher]

Making the tournament bigger/longer will drive away many of the casual participants, IMO. Is the tournament now starting on Tuesday? Good luck getting anyone to turn them in by then. Most won't bother with the whole thing anymore.

I don't think you'll get a significant drop. Most of the people I know fill out brackets on-line through their office pool (anyone who does it the old fashioned way needs to change). If people are organized, they'll get their pools entries turned in. If not, so be it. It won't ruin the tourney.

There is also such a thing as viewer fatigue. It already goes for 3 solid week-ends. Personally, the first week-end of the NCAA tournament is my favorite week-end of the year, and I take Thursday and Friday off if I can pracitcally do so. Now you're going to add a 4th week-end? Or have 32 teams playing Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday? Either way you'll have viewer fatigue by the time the thing winds down.

Viewer fatigue? I disagree. I love college hoops. The more games, the better. The most watched sporting event in history takes place on the fourth weekend of competition and a bye week in between (five wks total) and it appears there is no viewer fatigue with that (Super Bowl). I think the NCAA tourney can survive an extra 16 games without turning people off.