NCAA, TV talk about bigger men’s tourney

Donate To GopherHole

Uh, oh.

Gotta' love those coaches looking out for their own skins. More fodder to pad their resumes.

"We're #96! We made the NCAA Tournament. Woo hoo!"

I'm going to assume this would mean more quality matchups (on home floors instead of all the lightly-attended, non-tournament neutral-site garbage) for the ticket-buying fans?;)

Yea, right.
 

Im not in favor of expanding the tournament but think they should have talks with cable compaines about getting out of their TV contract. It always bugged me that there wasnt games on sister channels especially during the first two weekends of the tourney, much like NBC does for the olympics. There are too many good games where you only get to see the last couple minutes...
 

I am in favor of expanding...into a field of 68. Have four play-in games for the No. 16 teams. Will add a few extra bubble teams. Certainly don't need an additional 30. Did the Tourney really suffer last year because Penn State wasn't in it?
 

Yep. More tv coverage, and not more teams. I would gladly watch more games. However, then Northwestern could maybe make their first ncaa tournament.....
 


You guys make good points. I'm definitely in the "don't mess with something that's working" camp, but I guess I could live with 3 additional play-in games. That's as far as I'd want it to go. Somehow, I don't think the NCAA will check with its fans before they make this decision.

Whether there's 65, 68, 96 or 128 teams, there's always going to be a bubble. The problem of teams being "unfairly left out" won't go away simply by expanding the tournament. The bubble will simply move from #66 to #69, #97, #129, etc. We'd still have mostly undeserving coaches/teams pis*ing and moaning (that means you Seth Greenberg & Jim Boeheim) about how they got screwed.
 

The #9 vs. #24 game, eh...sounds like a pretty crappy way to begin the "new" NCAA tournament. Oh well, probably wouldn't see it anyways, since it would be on ESPN-U under the new proposed contract.

I don't like messing with something that works. Don't water down the product...for more information on the subject, see: the NCAA football bowl season.
 

I tend to be scared off by whatever ideas the brain wizards in charge of the NCAA's come up with.
 

Expanding to 96 would be a horrible idea. First, it would make the regular season in the major 6 conferences largely meaningless. As long as you can be above .500 you're probably in. Second, the popularlity of the NCAA tournament is largely fueled by braket pools and gambling, let's not kid ourselves. Make the thing such a monstrosity that the average office worker who only watches a few games a week prior to the tournament can't figure it out and doesn't bother anymore and watch your TV ratings plummet.
 



As for moving it to cable, I can perhaps see this. There is talk of NBC potentially becoming a cable-only network once Comcast buys them. I'm not sure 'broadcast' television in the traditional sense is long for this world. However, I don't know if I'd go there all in one bite.

ESPN used to have the early rounds and I think the move entirely to CBS is part of what increased the popularity of the tournament 20 years ago. Personally, I have DirecTV and order mega-march madness and it's great. But in reality 90% of people don't have that option. I would think they could work out something where the local CBS affilliates still get whatever game they want in a given window, and ESPN can show the rest via 'mirror' much as the currently do with ABC football. I'm guessing ESPN would pony up big for this and the value to CBS wouldn't diminish all that much. Let's say CBS would still be willing to pay 75% of what they pay now, and ESPN would be willing to pay 50% of what CBS pays currently, they'd still end up with a fee bump of 25%.
 

May as well make it like the old one class HS boys basketball tourney where everyone is in.
 

Expand away! More games to watch. I see no reason to oppose it. It's not like our Gophers are a sure thing to get in every year.
 

Let's see; There are 65 teams in the BB tournament and they want to expand it.(Do teams 66-? have any chance to win?)

There are two hand-picked teams playing for the football title, with no intention of changing-Makes perfect sense to me.

If it's all about money then just admit it.
 



The only current fault I find is making auto-qualifiers compete in the play in game. Let the last two at large teams play in that game. We wouldn't make a double digit seed who made an unbelievable run to the Final Four have to play another game to qualify for the Semi-Finals of the national championship.
 

MNCH said:
I am in favor of expanding...into a field of 68. Have four play-in games for the No. 16 teams. Will add a few extra bubble teams. Certainly don't need an additional 30. Did the Tourney really suffer last year because Penn State wasn't in it?
Click to expand...

Right on - I've been in favor of a field of 68 ever since they added the play-in game. With 68 teams, the bottom 8 teams would compete for a spot in the field of 64 (and the dreaded #16 seed). I believe Dayton has been the host for the play-in game since that was adopted a few years ago. Instead of playing 1 game at that site they could have an afternoon double header session followed by an evening double-header session with the 4 winners advancing to the field of 64.

The overall effect would be to add 3 more decent bubble teams while eliminating some of the bad automatic qualifiers before they can reach the final 64.
 

96 teams would be really bad. At least make teams somewhat earn a spot in the tourney. Expand it that much and a 6-12 Big Ten team probably makes it.
 

That's the void the NIT covers. If you can't qualify as one of the top 65 teams in the country, you probably shouldn't be in the tournament.
 

Roy Christensen said:
May as well make it like the old one class HS boys basketball tourney where everyone is in.
Click to expand...

With the exception of the Ivy League, everyone is in. Every league, except the Ivy, plays a post-season tournament. And with the Big East going to a (very weird format) 16-team tournament, every team is in the post-season.

There are 34 teams (the at-large) get a back door.
 

I'm pretty leery of this idea. The biggest reason is because it keeps getting expanded every so often and at a certain point, when is enough going to be enough? Personally, I think it should be kept to 64 teams (I guess 65 if you count the play-in game). I know that Bobby Knight is in favor of a 128-team tournament, which I can understand at certain levels.

Like others have said, it's always going to be about money for the NCAA, so I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to go this route. But holy man, do we really need 80, 96, or 128 teams in the field?
 

BEWARE OF ALL FORMER COACH/ANALYSTS ON ESPN

I'd be willing to bet that if/when the topic comes up on the games they are covering, 99% of the former coaches will support an expanded field. The campaigning has already started. First it was Knight, then last night on ESPNU it was Mark Gottfried (former 'Bama coach) saying he thinks it's a great idea. I would expect most of the former-coaches-turned-broadcasters to kiss the a*ses of their former coaching comrades and start campaigning for a larger NCAA field. More NCAA bids (no matter how little deserved) = padding of coaching resumes & fewer coaches getting fired.

Get ready for the onslaught, because ESPN will make sure this topic stays at the forefront on their network. ESPN has a lot to gain if the NCAA opts out of its contract with CBS. My only hope is that Dickie V -- the broadcaster I like the least (other than Jimmy "The Dork" Dykes) -- is not in favor of expanding the tournament. But his #1 priority appears to be kissing the hind ends of every college basketball coach. If the coaches want an expanded tournament, it's a safe bet Vitale will fall in line. Hope he proves me wrong, but I won't hold my breath.
 

I am actully in favor of making the tourny smaller. By one team. Does anyone else think the play-in game is really dumb and serves to real purpose. I mean does any even watch it?
 

If they want to add more play-in games the best ones would be for those 12 and 13 seeds...the final at-large bids. With those 6-8 teams that just barely get squeezed out you could play in for those final spots, maybe 8 games for those final 12 and 13 seeds.

Still, I would much rather see the tournament stay exactly as it is. It's big enough already.
 

Why not just have all 347 D1 schools play in one big tourney? Oh, even better yet, make it a round robbin. That'd be good tv. When will people realize that there is great college basketball on before march madness?

Wouldn't Mid-majors and smaller conferences be against this, since their auto-bids would probably be seeded even lower after getting bumped by teams from the "major" conferences that would now sweak in?
 

Expansion would likely be at the expense of the smaller conferences. They wouldn't get extra bids, they would simply get shoved down to lower seeds. Some of the mid-level conferences might get an extra invite, but the majority of the expansion would be for bubble teams from the major conferences.
 

One step further. Take the 347 D1 schools and divide them into five classes. Let everyone play. Make more money.
 

mnboiler said:
I am actully in favor of making the tourny smaller. By one team. Does anyone else think the play-in game is really dumb and serves to real purpose. I mean does any even watch it?
Click to expand...

I can sympathize. When they first announced the addition of the play-in game, I thought it was completely unnecessary. I still do in fact. But it's the NCAA. A lot of what they do doesn't make any sense.
 

Jay Bilas exposed the real issue: They're are just too many teams playing at the D-1 level. The schools are chasing the money and prestige of the tournament when the chances they'll ever see any of it are extremely small. More and more schools attempt to "make the jump" to D-1 status.
 

The Truth said:
Jay Bilas exposed the real issue: They're are just too many teams playing at the D-1 level. The schools are chasing the money and prestige of the tournament when the chances they'll ever see any of it are extremely small. More and more schools attempt to "make the jump" to D-1 status.
Click to expand...

That's why I would be in favor of a D-1AA like in football. 347 teams is just too many. The regular season wouldn't have to change at all and these schools would still play the large one's in November and December. But instead of having their conference tournaments, play their own small school tournament to decide a champion similar to D1-AA football. Then let the top 8 teams from that tournament play in the NCAA tourney as the 15 and 16 seeds.
 

Something is seriously wrong with my sports world today.

If this happens, it is only about the money. In no way does it serve us, the fans.
 

Selection Sunday, I have always been impressed with your ability to pick the 65 team field. Last year you hit everyone correct. I think you have done it before as well. Now, the challenge to you would be to pick all 96! :)
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom