So we’re going to 76 teams in the tourney for entertainment value?Glad you're tickled but it literally entirely is.
So we’re going to 76 teams in the tourney for entertainment value?Glad you're tickled but it literally entirely is.
So we’re going to 76 teams in the tourney for entertainment value?
Seems like that Top 50 might not be accurateGeorge will be very disappointed….
Or depressing depending on whose money it is and how much there is to count....idk...but counting money can be entertaining![]()
Does recency not matter at all? If you were an AD and could hire anybody in the universe, would you hire Cal over Hurley right now?Musselman has twice as many 2nd weekend appearances in less years,
a better winning percentage,
never had any of his seasons vacated,
and at his 3rd school has started out better in his first two years at a football school than Underwood did at a basketball school.
Unless your only criteria is the outcome of the R32 game in the Tournament, then yes, Underwood is objectively better. Even then you have to completely discount the fact that BU's recent tournament results are much better than Muss's (non-existent) recent tournament results.Don't get me wrong, I'll take Underwood as my coach, but Underwood is not objectively better. That's your opinion and maybe your as guilty of being prisoner of the moment as the people who insist on being critical.
Ok, are we talking about the vast majority of sports or the mega revenue generating ones? Yes, if I'm watching my kid play, it's not about me whatsoever.The vast majority of sports played on earth at any given time are played in front of zero fans. So, the premise that sports only exist for fans or that athletes are just like these implements toiling around on display solely for the enjoyment of strangers is silly.
Would this particular version of this particular sport exist without fans? No. Would there still be college basketball without fans? Yes.
Why? Because sports don't exist because of fans. Fans exist because of sport.
No, that is the powers that be violating the core purpose of the exercise, which is to provide the best entertainment. That's my whole point.So we’re going to 76 teams in the tourney for entertainment value?
I believe the discussion started around the idea (maybe not these exact words) that the only purpose of sports (in this instance college basketball) is to entertain fans.Ok, are we talking about the vast majority of sports or the mega revenue generating ones? Yes, if I'm watching my kid play, it's not about me whatsoever.
The second I put money down to watch a professional athlete play, the same money that pays their salary/NIL, yes.....I'm paying for entertainment. When the commercials are purely based on viewership, our time watching, and this money goes into lining billionaires pockets....I have a vested interest. We all do.
Furthermore, the entities running the events are entertaining us as part of getting us through the door, whether that be shooting t-shirts into the crowd, putting up kiss cams, playing music during intermissions , etc.....the whole thing is part of a show for the fan experience.
Now, if you're saying that it's free, I don't have to buy tickets, the concessions are free, I have absolutely no skin in the game and it's 100% outcome based... where the fans showing up have absolutely no impact on NIL, multiple million dollar salaries, etc and it is limited to players playing the sport for sport....it's not about us anymore. At that point us, as fans, are of no relevance. It's a glorified YMCA game at that point. At that point, it's not about any of us.
How many times have our insiders referred to ROI based on paying our players based on wins and losses? Is that just about the sport? No, the current product doesn't exist without us. Our entertainment and money is mandatory to the products current existence.
If the players don't want to be paid, we're just showing up for support and our existence is meaningless....it's all about the game. In all other instances, the entertainment value and our players deciding to play where they want to play based on our participation....I want my money's worth.
Can't move the goalposts and lump high D1/professional sports in the same category as a High School gym on a random Tuesday night.
We're saying the same thing from different angles. What fan entertainment value is, at base, is the ability to stir that internal passion and love for the game in all of us, the participants and spectators alike.I believe the discussion started around the idea (maybe not these exact words) that the only purpose of sports (in this instance college basketball) is to entertain fans.
So then think about what I said. Doesn't the fact that people have basketball hoops in their driveways and wiffle balls and bats in their garages show that sports have purpose beyond the entertainment of others? Perhaps that the participants derive some value from athletic competition that doesn't require a fan to validate?
The college basketball players we pay to be entertained by didn't start by playing in front of thousands of fans. They started playing in front of no one. And they did it anyway. Because they liked it and they were good at it. It was fun. It's not like that part of them dies as soon as they sign an NIL deal. They are still getting value from competing in the game that doesn't require fans to be realized. The game still serves a purpose to them.
So, the only reason sports (this one or that one) exist is not for fan entertainment. That is just one significant reason among several others.
And participation trophies!!!So we’re going to 76 teams in the tourney for entertainment value?
No, that is the powers that be violating the core purpose of the exercise, which is to provide the best entertainment. That's my whole point.
I don't want to dogpile because this is the recruiting thread and it seems like you guys have already covered this pretty thoroughly, but Underwood is objectively better, and the only argument that isn't flat wrong (but very thinly veiled) is second weekends, which is meaningless, because Underwood has more tourney wins overall.Unless your only criteria is the outcome of the R32 game in the Tournament, then yes, Underwood is objectively better. Even then you have to completely discount the fact that BU's recent tournament results are much better than Muss's (non-existent) recent tournament results.
I don't want to dogpile because this is the recruiting thread and it seems like you guys have already covered this pretty thoroughly, but Underwood is objectively better, and the only argument that isn't flat wrong (but very thinly veiled) is second weekends, which is meaningless, because Underwood has more tourney wins overall.
Please tell me that Underwood isn't objectively better, finishing 10 of 13 seasons with a better-ranked team at the end of the season compared to the start, where Musselman has only done this 4 times in 11. Underwood has 6 top 25 finishes in KP (4 in the last 6, with 3 in the top 10), where Musselman has 4 top 25, and none better than 18.
Tournament performance is absolutely important and a key indicator for success for any NCAAB fan, but can also be relatively anomalous (one way or the other). If you look at success as an aggregate and not cherry-picked, then it's clear that BU has and is capable of achieving more. I'm not saying Muss is a terrible coach and should be fired, but I'll take consistent success over a few good consecutive runs, if that makes me a homer so be it.
View attachment 50541
The point is, a sports industry that fails to entertain fans is a sports industry that is turning off the money spigot that makes the rest of it go.The purpose of the powers that be in professional sports is to maximize profit to benefit the stakeholders. The core exercise of the sport has long been abandoned to achieve that end. The core purpose of the fans is to transfer their earnings to the stakeholders. "No more, no less."
We're one more shaky November away from USC fans saying that though.I'm not saying Muss is a terrible coach and should be fired
Agree w/ this 100%. I may have jumped in to the convo at an awkward moment and misinterpreted it. But yeah, the business of sports cannot exist without fans who are willing to buy the product.We're saying the same thing from different angles. What fan entertainment value is, at base, is the ability to stir that internal passion and love for the game in all of us, the participants and spectators alike.
The point is that to the extent sports is a money-making enterprise, that is solely and entirely due the interest and passion of the fans. Every red cent in the industry flows based on that.
The point is, a sports industry that fails to entertain fans is a sports industry that is turning off the money spigot that makes the rest of it go.
We're addicts that will keep buying a watered down product, sure. But not forever, not without limit.
This industry grew and sustained by fostering passion and tradition that masses of ordinary fans loved and cared about. That is the crop that is being harvested with every TV deal.
I can get on board with this argument, but I think we can all agree that the reason we pay a college coach millions of dollars is for entertainment.I believe the discussion started around the idea (maybe not these exact words) that the only purpose of sports (in this instance college basketball) is to entertain fans.
So then think about what I said. Doesn't the fact that people have basketball hoops in their driveways and wiffle balls and bats in their garages show that sports have purpose beyond the entertainment of others? Perhaps that the participants derive some value from athletic competition that doesn't require a fan to validate?
The college basketball players we pay to be entertained by didn't start by playing in front of thousands of fans. They started playing in front of no one. And they did it anyway. Because they liked it and they were good at it. It was fun. It's not like that part of them dies as soon as they sign an NIL deal. They are still getting value from competing in the game that doesn't require fans to be realized. The game still serves a purpose to them.
So, the only reason sports (this one or that one) exist is not for fan entertainment. That is just one significant reason among several others.
I personally value final KenPom as the single most important metric (unless a coach consistently over/underachieves in the NCAAT after taking into account opponent quality). By that, Brad has clearly been better. I even lean towards wanting excellent seasons (ideally in whatever is the very top tier in a given year) more than I care about a better average, and that still puts Brad way ahead. That's even more true if you ignore both coaches' first two seasons at a new school.I don't want to dogpile because this is the recruiting thread and it seems like you guys have already covered this pretty thoroughly, but Underwood is objectively better, and the only argument that isn't flat wrong (but very thinly veiled) is second weekends, which is meaningless, because Underwood has more tourney wins overall.
Please tell me that Underwood isn't objectively better, finishing 10 of 13 seasons with a better-ranked team at the end of the season compared to the start, where Musselman has only done this 4 times in 11. Underwood has 6 top 25 finishes in KP (4 in the last 6, with 3 in the top 10), where Musselman has 4 top 25, and none better than 18.
Tournament performance is absolutely important and a key indicator for success for any NCAAB fan, but can also be relatively anomalous (one way or the other). If you look at success as an aggregate and not cherry-picked, then it's clear that BU has and is capable of achieving more. I'm not saying Muss is a terrible coach and should be fired, but I'll take consistent success over a few good consecutive runs, if that makes me a homer so be it.
View attachment 50541
Beautifully stated. You need to copyright this! Reminded me of Terrance Mann at the end of Field of DreamsThe vast majority of sports played on earth at any given time are played in front of zero fans. So, the premise that sports only exist for fans or that athletes are just like these implements toiling around on display solely for the enjoyment of strangers is silly.
Would this particular version of this particular sport exist without fans? No. Would there still be college basketball without fans? Yes.
Why? Because sports don't exist because of fans. Fans exist because of sport.
Professional and major NCAA sports certainly exist as is for the entertainment value of the fans.It tickles me when fans think the purpose of of a sport is for their entertainment value.