College Sports (Basketball)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#176      
Illini2010-11
Navy_illini said:
I honestly think this will cost the NCAA money long term. One of the biggest things that cause people to care about the tournament is picking your bracket. It is the biggest reason the NCAA will not consider reseeding the field for the sweet 16 or final 4.

Now to get the 12 over 5 upset you now have to pick the play in game and then the upset. It’s already hard enough to guess the upsets
Click to expand...
How would it cost them money exactly? They do not get direct proceeds from any of the bracket challenges.

No bracket challenge that I have ever seen has you selecting the winner of the play-in games. I cannot see why any bracket challenge would add in the play-in games as part of their brackets either. Most brackets have these games as "play-in" games to the field of 64. Unless the brackets gets rebranded as all teams not in the play-in games as "byes", then I doubt any of these above concerns will be an issue. I very rarely finish my brackets tweaks until 9 AM CT on Thursday morning, so none of these extra games will impact me at all.
 
#177      
grue2
Second place is 1st loser said:
Yet, Miami(OH) beat them straight up, head to head.

They went undefeated in that conference, beat Akron, yet we ignore that and default to KenPom.

When does that stop? It's issues like this that the NCAA can point at as a good reason for expansion. We ignore what happened on the court and who actually won the conference and choose an algorithm to make decisions. Why play the regular season?
Click to expand...
The no thanks is based on what happened on the court. W/L only tells part of the story. There is a big difference between an unbeaten team consistently winning by 20, and one who ekes out a lot of close games against pretty weak competition; one even went to OT. Many of those Q4 games could easily have gone the other way. They get an A+ in the Rudy skill. As a team, I'll be generous and give them a D. They lost by 22 to a coasting TN team. A win over a single Q3 team (Akron) does not an NCAA tournament team make.
 
#180      
Navy_illini
Illini2010-11 said:
How would it cost them money exactly? They do not get direct proceeds from any of the bracket challenges.

No bracket challenge that I have ever seen has you selecting the winner of the play-in games. I cannot see why any bracket challenge would add in the play-in games as part of their brackets either. Most brackets have these games as "play-in" games to the field of 64. Unless the brackets gets rebranded as all teams not in the play-in games as "byes", then I doubt any of these above concerns will be an issue. I very rarely finish my brackets tweaks until 9 AM CT on Thursday morning, so none of these extra games will impact me at all.
Click to expand...
As the field expands significantly so will your bracket. Yes the NCAA doesn’t directly profit off any bracket challenges. However viewership is directly tied to it.
 
#182      
Grandpa
Uhh the CFP only has 12/138 teams (8.7%). They're trying to shift that to 16 (11%) or 24 (17%).
Click to expand...
Username does not check out!
 
#183      
bavanga3
Second place is 1st loser said:
Yet, Miami(OH) beat them straight up, head to head.

They went undefeated in that conference, beat Akron, yet we ignore that and default to KenPom.

When does that stop? It's issues like this that the NCAA can point at as a good reason for expansion. We ignore what happened on the court and who actually won the conference and choose an algorithm to make decisions. Why play the regular season?
Click to expand...
One game doesn't determine an entire season. They also didn't go undefeated, which is why they needed an at large. Wisconsin won more BIG games than us combining the regular season and conference tourney and beat us twice, I don't think anybody claims they had the better season.
The original post suggested Akron went on a 3 game heater and wasn't close to Miami all year. Just not true. Debatable, but they were neck and neck all year. Conference tourney settled it.
 
#184      
rtbritt
Second place is 1st loser said:
I was going to say that. If we want to be positive about the situation, the #16 seeds and two of the #15 seeds are going to be the best of the low majors and those games vs the #1 and #2 seeds are more likely to stay competitive for a half.

Another positive would be the 12/5 and 11/6 upsets are going to be far more likely. The games involving the lower seeds COULD be more competitive.

Also, at this point, NO TEAM should EVER complain that they didn't make it. If you're #79, you've had a bad year if you're in a power conference. My hope would be that this cleans up the issue with the mid majors who had a GREAT year, but loses in the championship game of their conference tournament. If a team like that gets in over a high major that had a 9-11 conference record, you could probably get me to buy in little more.

Those are all upsides if the NCAA gets it right.

What's far more likely is that this is a TOTAL money grab by the major conferences and the a team like Indiana, who sucked, gets in only because the Big Ten would get a few more bucks by adding another team and it won't be the Missouri Valley, MAC, etc who benefit
Click to expand...
Do you think it has worked since they expanded to 68? Or the CFP expansion?

They team vying for the final spots will always have an argument for being better than that last team in..
 
#186      
sulli
It’s a bad idea full stop.

It further devalues the regular season. If you have a guy injured in January no reason to try to get him back playing since there is no threat to not make the tourney.

It’s a money grab because the NCAA makes money on the tournament and the individual teams/conferences make money on the regular season. This is the ncaa making their product more valuable at the expense of the regular season product they don’t own.

It seems to me that very few fans want this change. Like probably less than 10%.

That’s long term dumb. Playoff expansion has ruined MLB and NBA.
 
#187      
Hessel Blvd
I doubt that its' how this will work out, but if 76 means we see another 5 or 6 mid-majors in the tourney, I might not mind it. Yeah, the Indiana's and Auburn's of last year I don't need to see play basketball in March, unless I get to watch a MM beat Indiana and have a shot at a higher seed team.
I mean, as long as you and I keep giving our money, the NCAA will keep figuring out a way to squeeze a few dollars more.

It's our fault, y'all.
 
#188      
Appleknockersaluki
Second place is 1st loser said:
The reality is that with every conference having conference tournaments, every team is in anyway. The playoff you speak of is already in place via Championship Week. You can be 0-30 in the regular season, but if you win your conference tournament.....you're in.

The FAIR thing to do is to eliminate all conference tournaments and the champion of the regular season gets the automatic bid.

The fans would HATE that change because it's one of the best weeks of the year. That said, for those complaining about adding 8 additional teams are a bit hypocritical if you love the conference tournaments. Miami, who was undefeated, BARELY got in after they lost to Akron in the conference tournament. That situation happens every year in multiple conference and it's sold as "bid stealers", when all it really is...is the best team for 4 months getting screwed by a team that got hot for three games.

I'm one of the hypocrites. I LOVE championship week, but I don't like the 8 team addition. In both situations, teams that don't deserve to get in, get in.
Click to expand...
A couple of irrelevant, nit-picky corrections:

Not every team qualifies for conference tournaments. The OVC and MAC, for example, only let the top eight teams in the tourney.

Miami lost to U Mass, not Akron, in the first round of the conference tournament.
 
#192      
ChiefGritty
www.cbssports.com

Why March Madness expansion is really happening: NCAA unnecessarily folded to a bluff from power conferences

March Madness is going to expand because of soft threats and endless greed from the power conferences, Matt Norlander argues
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com

Very smart article, expressing in frank terms the awful truth of all of this: none of this really suits anyone's interests, there aren't really any winners, no one actually makes any money off of this, it's just careless autopilot reacting to fake problems and totally abdicating any responsibility of stewardship of the sport.

For the record I am going to send an email to Josh Whitman asking him to put a stop to this, and I would encourage others to do the same. If we are going to have the sports we love in the future, the fans need to advocate for themselves and have their voices heard, there is far, far too much cynicism about what is "inevitable".
 
#194      
Bucktown
Fly Illini Fly! said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2049881559201624246
Click to expand...
This is the kind of thing that allows Duke to spend more on NIL. Illinois needs to do a better job in getting its players in national ad campaigns. Illinois has advertising and marketing managers and executives up and down the consumer products industries. Surely we can find find a way to get our players some face time in advertising.

Mirk, the twins, Andrej, even Jake's hair have something to offer brands.
 
#195      
Second place is 1st loser
https://twitter.com/x/status/2049881559201624246
throwing some elbows at ESPN, CBS and Fox!
Click to expand...
Bezos throwing some elbows at ESPN and Fox!

I'm surprised that Duke, as a member of the ACC, has the power to stiff arm various conference affiliations. Theoretically, it's not just Duke's deal.

Michigan and UCONN are part of this and the Big Ten and Big East have deals with Fox. The ACC has a deal in place with the ACC, SEC and Big 12.

Apparently, individual schools have the ability to go off on their own and go direct to whatever service they choose?

This seems like awfully dangerous precedent and the fans having to open up the pocketbooks again.

We get a good dose of it in the Big Ten with the Peacock BS.
 
#198      
ChiefGritty
Fly Illini Fly! said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2049881559201624246
Click to expand...

So, any game (even at a neutral site) where Duke is the "home" team belongs to the ACC via the grant of rights, and therefore ESPN via the ACC's media deal. So what gives?

Duke worked with the ACC and ESPN on future scheduling commitments in exchange for the ability to play these three neutral-site games, including participating in select ESPN-owned and operated neutral-site events in the 2027-28 and 2028-29 seasons.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, at Wake Forest, Boston College et al
Hungry Dinner GIF
 
#199      
Second place is 1st loser
So, any game (even at a neutral site) where Duke is the "home" team belongs to the ACC via the grant of rights, and therefore ESPN via the ACC's media deal. So what gives?



Meanwhile, at Wake Forest, Boston College et al
Hungry Dinner GIF
Click to expand...
Yep. That gif also applies to the fans. Ultimately, that's where the cost gets pushed.
 
#200      
Emerson Bigguns
The thing I dislike the most about the expanded field is what it does to small schools. I think the auto-bids should be exempt from play-in games. Your reward is a more winnable game, but even worse odds of making a memorable run.

I say...Let the teams who didn't win squat fight over the scraps. (not that anyone cares...)

I don't really have a problem with more games... I like basketball, especially when the stakes are win or go home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back