College Sports (Basketball)

#3      
IlliniwekKDR
tongue thumbs down GIF
 
#11      
Mr. Tibbs
frozenrope9190 said:
Theyre not gonna put the #2 team of a mid major in this, they'll put the 11th place team of a Power 4.

Blech.
Click to expand...
pretty much
it might open up 1 spot for a mid major team , but pretty much it just gets 7 more schools from the P4 in.

there will now likely be 6 sites scattered all over the country that start playing games as early as 6:00 Eastern time on Tuesday and Wednesday so they can get them all on TV
 
#13      
Grandpa
Auburn and Indiana would have been in. I wasn't paying attention to the bubble, don't know who else.

12 teams that would have been in the 64 team field will have to play the first 12 out.
 
#14      
ChiefGritty
May we pray that this is being leaked to generate the fan outcry necessary to kill it.

Obviously the schools, conferences, and NCAA itself should be ashamed of themselves for even considering this. But what puzzles me is why the broadcasters have any interest. These play-in games are garbage inventory and just sap the magical brand of the tournament. It's their golden goose too, why are they brandishing a knife?

The values that operate our institutions are poison, folks.
 
#16      
STLini25
Mr. Tibbs said:
pretty much
it might open up 1 spot for a mid major team , but pretty much it just gets 7 more schools from the P4 in.

there will now likely be 6 sites scattered all over the country that start playing games as early as 6:00 Eastern time on Tuesday and Wednesday so they can get them all on TV
Click to expand...
Article said 2 sites and 2 days. So three games each site each day.
 
#17      
Second place is 1st loser
STLini25 said:
Something like 8 16 seeds plus the last 16 at large teams would play to get in the Round of 64
Click to expand...
We's be going from 68 to 76. That's an 8 team difference.

We'd be looking at 4 additional games with the inclusion of 8 additional teams?

Would we may be looking at ALL of the 16 seeds being part of the play in game(2 additional games), as well as ALL of the 11 seeds(2 additional games)? There are your 4 additional games, 8 additional teams and adds more spots for the high major programs.
 
#18      
From the cheap seats
The original intent of the NCAA allegedly was to provide opportunities for the college "student-athletes." Its outdate mission statement still is about those things. The goal was not to entertain fans. Of course, that has changed and now intercollegiate sports is big business as in mega TV deals, filling stadiums and arenas (often with the caveat that you first must give to a fund in order to have the privilege to buy the tickets), attracting big-spending boosters and, thankfully for the players who actually generate all that income, NIL.
Adding 8 teams won't fundamentally change anything about March Madness, other than:
--Creating more debate about those left out because the further down you go, the thinner the gaps become
--Giving those loveable 16 seeds a better than 1.25% (that's the number) chance of winning a game in March Madness
--Giving 120 more players an opportunity to participate (an argument not for a participation trophy, but a participation experience)
Guess I don't see the harm.
 
#19      
ChiefGritty
From the cheap seats said:
The original intent of the NCAA allegedly was to provide opportunities for the college "student-athletes." Its outdate mission statement still is about those things. The goal was not to entertain fans. Of course, that has changed and now intercollegiate sports is big business as in mega TV deals, filling stadiums and arenas (often with the caveat that you first must give to a fund in order to have the privilege to buy the tickets), attracting big-spending boosters and, thankfully for the players who actually generate all that income, NIL.
Adding 8 teams won't fundamentally change anything about March Madness, other than:
--Creating more debate about those left out because the further down you go, the thinner the gaps become
--Giving those loveable 16 seeds a better than 1.25% (that's the number) chance of winning a game in March Madness
--Giving 120 more players an opportunity to participate (an argument not for a participation trophy, but a participation experience)
Guess I don't see the harm.
Click to expand...
The ugly truth here is that the NCAA correctly sees itself as facing a war of extinction against the major conferences, with its money, and therefore its leverage, coming almost entirely from the men's basketball tournament, mostly the TV deal, but also the ticketing and other ancillary revenue from sites which would expand under this plan.

That this plan dilutes and devalues the regular season, and creates scheduling headaches for the conference tournaments, both of which are cash cows for the conferences without the NCAA receiving a dime, is a feature from their perspective, not a bug.

The soccer world is eating itself over exactly these kinds of governance misalignment issues.

All that is sacred will be profaned.
 
#20      
thefalcon5
The issue I have most with it is that it waters down the achievement of making the tournament. I sincerely don’t know who’s asking for this.

That being said, if the NCAA thinks this will increase revenue that’s enough reason for them to do it. Why? Because nobody is going to stop watching just because they added more teams. It’s a shame but it’s the reality.
 
#21      
From the cheap seats
Other than for those teams on the wrong side of the bubble, the conference tourneys have been becoming less relevant each year. Yes, this may hasten that a bit.
I could make a strong case that losing in an early round and getting extra rest and prep time after a grueling conference season was actually beneficial for the Illini. The conference tourneys are great for the mid-majors. Not so much for the P4 leagues (other than the money, of course).
 
#22      
STLini25
Second place is 1st loser said:
We's be going from 68 to 76. That's an 8 team difference.

We'd be looking at 4 additional games with the inclusion of 8 additional teams?

Would we may be looking at ALL of the 16 seeds being part of the play in game(2 additional games), as well as ALL of the 11 seeds(2 additional games)? There are your 4 additional games, 8 additional teams and adds more spots for the high major programs.
Click to expand...
They haven’t stated but I think it will be in the direction of 8 16 seeds. And then the last 16 at large seed (usually 10 and 11 seeds) play for 8 spots in the Round of 64. That’s 76 teams. So all 16 seeds and approximately all 10 and 11 seeds are play in games.
 
#23      
From the cheap seats
I respect everyone's opinions; mine is that the watering-down is a non-issue, especially as the tourney progresses. Since 1985, when the tourney expanded to 64 teams, the 16 seeds have a record of 2-160 (UMBC over Virginia in 2018 and Farleigh Dickinson over Purdue in 2023, which is perhaps the best argument for expansion, a chance to see an even lower-ranked team beat Purdue :)).
Relatively few people watch those play-in games; heck, most brackets don't even begin until it gets to the Round of 64.
The history of expansion of March Madness is fascinating:
--1939-51: 8 teams chosen from regions
--1951-1975: 16 teams, and you had to win your league to get in. Runners-up in all other leagues were "relegated" to the NIT, which sometimes got more media attention than the NCAA Tourney because it was being held in the media capital of the world and had the second-place finishers from the major conferences. In 1950, CCNY won both the NIT and NCAA Tourneys. (Caveat: In some years before the next expansion, the NCAA had 22-25 teams because new leagues had been formed, but still no at-large bids.)
--1975: Expanded to 32 teams, including the first at-large bids. The popularity of the NIT was a major reason. In 1971, the NCAA passed a rule that if you rejected a bid to the NCAA, you could not play in any other post-season tourney. That's because in 1970 Al McGuire and Marquette turned down a NCAA bid over unhappiness with their regional assignment and went on to win the NIT. (Back in 1967, the Walt Frazier-led SIU Salukis turned down a NCAA College Division berth to become the first College Division team invited to the NIT. They won it by beating St. Peters, Duke, Rutgers and Marquette. Earlier in the season, they had beaten defending National Champ Texas Western and No. 2-ranked Louisville with Wes Unseld.
--1985: Expanded to 64 teams (though as many as 53 teams participated in some years between 1975 and 1985). Villanova, an 8 seed that finished 9-7 in the Big East, won the tourney and remains the lowest seed ever to win. It was the last year before the shot clock (thanks Villanova).
--2001: 65 teams, with one play-in game because the Mountain West started getting an automatic bid.
--2011: Expanded to 68 teams with 4 play-in games.
 
Last edited:
#24      
Mr. Tibbs
thefalcon5 said:
The issue I have most with it is that it waters down the achievement of making the tournament. I sincerely don’t know who’s asking for this.

That being said, if the NCAA thinks this will increase revenue that’s enough reason for them to do it. Why? Because nobody is going to stop watching just because they added more teams. It’s a shame but it’s the reality.
Click to expand...
This is 100% driven by the NCAA as this tournament accounts for like 90% + of their revenue.
more money made in March Madness means it goes to their bottom line
 
#25      
Illini2010-11
RabidDawgClassic said:
I suspect this is gaining traction because… gambling. Gotta have more games to place bets on. (See: Crown, College Basketball)
Click to expand...
Speaking of, can't see that tourney surviving. Mediocre teams playing in a tourney the week of the Final Four. You know it is bad when they have to get all the way down to Rutgers at 14-19 to fill out an 8 team field.
 
Back