NCAA Tournament likely staying w/ CBS+Turner

[BlueX]

http://gary-parrish.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6271764/21003261?tag=comBlogEntryListCnt;entry21003261

With the 96 team garbage all but a certainty at least ESPN likely won't get it's hands on it.

[Masterofreality]

Thank Gawd,

Could you stand to hear the 4 letter network honks just yammering non-stop about how all 16 Big Greased teams did in the tournament after they forced the NCAA to take them all because of their prior non-stop yammering?

At least CBS may give a little more balance, but not much more. Remember, you can't spell CBS without BCS.

[MuskieFan151]

I really, really do not want the tournament to include 96 teams.

[XU 87]

Big 6 teams like Syracuse will now go back to playing all their non-conference games at home against a bunch of patsies. Someone pointed out earlier that this will make it tougher for X to schedule good non-conference games. I agree. There's little incentive anymore for a Big 6 team to have a tough non-conference schedule other than getting a first round bye. And with the competition being so diluted, a bye doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.

The NCAA regular season isn't all that important anymore.

[The_Mack_Pack]

Big 6 teams like Syracuse will now go back to playing all their non-conference games at home against a bunch of patsies. Someone pointed out earlier that this will make it tougher for X to schedule good non-conference games. I agree. There's little incentive anymore for a Big 6 team to have a tough non-conference schedule other than getting a first round bye. And with the competition being so diluted, a bye doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.

The NCAA regular season isn't all that important anymore.

I'm hoping that the regular season attendance sucks so badly for the NCAA that they are forced back into the 65 team tournament. Same with the first round of those 16 vs 17 games or whatever the hell the matchups are.

[SixFig]

I'm hoping that the regular season attendance sucks so badly for the NCAA that they are forced back into the 65 team tournament. Same with the first round of those 16 vs 17 games or whatever the hell the matchups are.

TV Ratings and Revenue > Attendance Number and Revenue

Unless no one watches the newly appointed "first round" it will continue forever. And people, especially those who love college basketball like myself, will still watch. And the terrorists will win.

[smileyy]

After seeing a 96-team bracket, I can't say that I'm in love with it, but I'm not offended by it either.

[GoMuskies]

TV Ratings and Revenue > Attendance Number and Revenue

Unless no one watches the newly appointed "first round" it will continue forever. And people, especially those who love college basketball like myself, will still watch. And the terrorists will win.

I've seen the mock brackets. I'd watch very little of the "new" first round. It's going to be really bad basketball.

[Juice]

I think the ratings will suffer under the 96 team tourney. As of now a lot of people and students can take off work and skip class because it is 1 or 2 days. But under the format that has been thrown out there, it has two weeks of Thursday and Friday day games. There is no way people can take that much work and school off (well maybe school). I just don't see how the ratings are going to change that much to ruin this whole damn thing.

[xu05usmc]

I think this should just be the beginning of the end for conference tournaments. And good riddance to that. I cannot think of a single good reason why they should even exist in the first place. For the most part, with smaller conference schools it makes the entire season entirely irrelevant, and for bigger conference schools it doesn't really effect whether or not they get in. Plus they just make the STUDENT-athletes miss an entire week of class at a very bad time (semester schools are at mid terms, quarter schools are at finals).

[xubrew]

TV Ratings and Revenue > Attendance Number and Revenue


the two are proportionate, though. if regular season attendance goes down, presumably the tv ratings would as well.


I think this should just be the beginning of the end for conference tournaments. And good riddance to that. I cannot think of a single good reason why they should even exist in the first place. For the most part, with smaller conference schools it makes the entire season entirely irrelevant, and for bigger conference schools it doesn't really effect whether or not they get in.

i seriously don't think it will be the end of conference tournaments. it's not the conference tournaments that make the season irrelevant for the smaller conferences. it's the losing during the ooc portion of the regular season. the season itself is not made irrelevant by the conference tourneys. in fact the season is very relevant. the reason the smaller leagues don't get bids isn't because their small, but because they lose so many ooc games. those losses are therefore relevant. same with the conferences who generally send multiple teams. those ooc wins are therefore relevant.

[jdm2000]

I'm beginning to come around to the 96-team field. For one thing, the size of D-1 is so great that right now, fewer than 20% of the teams make the tourney. That's a smaller percentage of teams in the championship competition than the NFL, NBA, or even MLB (which only puts in 8/30). Even at 96 out of roughly 350 schools, you will be looking at a smaller percentage of teams making it to the tournament than you have in the NBA and NFL.

[xubrew]

I'm beginning to come around to the 96-team field. For one thing, the size of D-1 is so great that right now, fewer than 20% of the teams make the tourney. That's a smaller percentage of teams in the championship competition than the NFL, NBA, or even MLB (which only puts in 8/30). Even at 96 out of roughly 350 schools, you will be looking at a smaller percentage of teams making it to the tournament than you have in the NBA and NFL.

there is nothing less exciting with so little riding on it than a typical regular season nba or mlb game.

the nfl takes a larger percentage of teams, but they only play half as many games. as far as the importance of any given regular season game, the nfl is right on par with the ncaa in the 64 team format. if the nfl played 32 games (roughly the lengh of a college basketball season) and only took six teams, the percentage would be virtually identical to the 65 out of 345.

it seems to me that 65 out of 345 over the course of 30 games is just right when comparing it to other major sports successful regular seasons.

[Juice]

I'm beginning to come around to the 96-team field. For one thing, the size of D-1 is so great that right now, fewer than 20% of the teams make the tourney. That's a smaller percentage of teams in the championship competition than the NFL, NBA, or even MLB (which only puts in 8/30). Even at 96 out of roughly 350 schools, you will be looking at a smaller percentage of teams making it to the tournament than you have in the NBA and NFL.

The Bulls made it in with a 41-41 records. If you expand the tournament you reward mediocrity. I guarantee that with 96 teams getting in some will have a below .500 record in their conference. Making the NCAA tournament should be something a team earns, not something they just kind of fall into because they won some games.

[muskienick]

I think this should just be the beginning of the end for conference tournaments. And good riddance to that. I cannot think of a single good reason why they should even exist in the first place. For the most part, with smaller conference schools it makes the entire season entirely irrelevant, and for bigger conference schools it doesn't really effect whether or not they get in. Plus they just make the STUDENT-athletes miss an entire week of class at a very bad time (semester schools are at mid terms, quarter schools are at finals).

I couldn't agree more! I've always believed that winning a 16-game Conference schedule should easily outweigh a 3- or 4-game win streak in a Conference Tourney that would lead a team to the League's "Promised Land" of a guaranteed bid to the NCAA Tourney.

I will give you some props points as soon as I post this!

[xubrew]

I couldn't agree more! I've always believed that winning a 16-game Conference schedule should easily outweigh a 3- or 4-game win streak in a Conference Tourney that would lead a team to the League's "Promised Land" of a guaranteed bid to the NCAA Tourney.

in terms of seeding, it does.

there really isn't anything the ncaa can do about conference tournaments. conference tournaments are at the descretion of the conference itself, and the members of that conference. i agree that it's silly to have three or four tournament games trump sixteen, but if that's how the conferences want to structure themselves, that's their right.

what i would like to see is leagues like summit and southland structure their tournaments to where the top seed is protected, or at the very least has home court advantage throughout the tournament. i really like how the horizon does it. the patriot, big sky, big south and northeast conferences are among the leagues that favor the better seeded team throughout the conference tourneys. at least the regular season counts for something in a league like that, even if it is just home court advantage.

[jdm2000]

The Bulls made it in with a 41-41 records. If you expand the tournament you reward mediocrity. I guarantee that with 96 teams getting in some will have a below .500 record in their conference. Making the NCAA tournament should be something a team earns, not something they just kind of fall into because they won some games.

We've already had teams make it with sub-.500 conference records, so that will be nothing new. Perhaps 96 is too many; I don't know. But I can't help but think that there were people when the field expanded to 64 in 1985 (or whenever it was) saying that it was the end of the tournament as we know it, and it would be watered down.

[Juice]

We've already had teams make it with sub-.500 conference records, so that will be nothing new. Perhaps 96 is too many; I don't know. But I can't help but think that there were people when the field expanded to 64 in 1985 (or whenever it was) saying that it was the end of the tournament as we know it, and it would be watered down.

Well I meant that a lot of teams would get an at large birth with sub-.500 records. Most if not all have been ones with automatic bids from conference tournaments.

It needed to expand to 64 back then because of the growth in Division 1 basketball. I just don't see the need right now.

Also, I would be fine with a 68 team field with 4 play in games. It expands it a little bit to let in a few more at large teams and not destroy the tournament in its current form.

[jdm2000]

I think there have been at least a couple sub-.500 conference records get in as at larges. Here I'm thinking of 7-9 ACC teams that have gotten in, but I can't remember off the top of my head.

As for expansion of D-1, there are now 347 D-1 teams as compared to 284 in 1985. You've essentially added an entire NCAA tourney field to D-1 in the last twenty five years, and added one team to the tournament. 96 teams may be too many, but the tournament has gone from taking 22.5% to taking 18.7% of the teams in D-1,and is no doubt headed lower as more teams join the NCAA.

I'd be happy with adding a few more and working its way up if it seems to make sense.

[xubrew]

i think what makes the most sense is for the conference champions and at-large champions to each roughly make up half the field.

there are more teams than in 1985, but only two more conferences. therefore, the access to the tournament really hasn't gone down with the increased number of teams.

[Kahns Krazy]

The 96 team field essentially incorporates the NIT, right? I'm totally okay with it. It's the exact same number of teams and games that were on between the two tournaments currently. Sure, there's going to be plenty of teams in that don't have a legitimate shot to win the tournament, but who cares? It's survive and advance time, and it makes for exciting basketball.

In my opinion, NCAA 96 > NCAA 64 + NIT 32

[xubrew]

The 96 team field essentially incorporates the NIT, right? I'm totally okay with it. It's the exact same number of teams and games that were on between the two tournaments currently. Sure, there's going to be plenty of teams in that don't have a legitimate shot to win the tournament, but who cares? It's survive and advance time, and it makes for exciting basketball.

In my opinion, NCAA 96 > NCAA 64 + NIT 32

disagree (obviously).

for starters, they may not incorporate the nit. they may end up giving two automatic bids to each conference instead of just one. that means the bubble would be pretty close to where it currently is.

secondly, the nit is an invitational and not a championship. non-conference champions who don't have a legit shot, or more importantly didn't earn the spot, shouldn't be in a championship event, imho.

my issue is that it makes for less exciting basketball during the regular season if there are 65 at large bids instead of 34. it lowers the standard and the intensity level in the four-and-a-half months that lead up to the tournament.

[smileyy]

A couple years ago, the NIT agreed to give automatic bids to all regular season champs who didn't make the NCAA tournament.

I agree that a 96-team tournament should be the death knell for conference tournaments. I wonder if the A-10 makes any money off of theirs? I'm sure the Big East does...

[xudash]

On the issue of the larger field discounting the value of the regular season, I'm not sure it will work out that way.

Successful athletes at this level live in a culture of winning.

Importantly, this isn't the pros, which is to infer that kids on scholarship can't go through the motions now and then IF they don't want to ride the bench, let alone if they a chance at the pros.

TV programming will still make sure that great match-ups will take place over the course of the season to generate viewers.

The regular season for football is important now because there is no play-off and the top teams in the nation vie every week for a shot at the NC game and the other BCS game slots.

The regular season for basketball, even with the expanded field, will still be about getting into the tourney - at a minimum - but then getting into it with the most attractive resume possible for seeding purposes.

o Successful programs will want want to get into the tournament virtually every year.
o Successful programs will want want to have solid seeding in the tournament.
o Successful programs will want want to win and be ranked over the course of the season.
o Successful programs will still schedule to be sharp by tournament time.

I might be off, but I also think too much stock is being put into the notion that every program can turn it down a notch now, because "everyone is going to back into the Dance" anyway. I just don't see that mindset taking hold.

[smileyy]

Successful programs will want want to win and be ranked over the course of the season

But as we've seen, if you're a name school with a gaudy W/L record, you'll be ranked, regardless of strength of schedule.

[LutherRackleyRulez]

Per NY Times....


CBS Considered Paying ESPN to Take Tourney

An extraordinary idea was broached last fall when CBS was trying to shave the huge losses it anticipated over the remaining years of its contract to televise the N.C.A.A. men’s basketball tournament.

CBS talked with ESPN about paying it to take the 2010 to 2013 tournaments off its hands, according to four executives with direct knowledge of the talks who were not authorized or willing to speak publicly.

The idea, initiated at the top levels of both news-media companies, was seriously considered but eventually discarded by Leslie Moonves, CBS’s chief executive; Robert A. Iger, chief executive of the Walt Disney Company, ESPN’s parent; and George W. Bodenheimer, the president of ESPN.

If it had occurred, the transaction would have been a fascinating episode in sports TV negotiations: a broadcaster, CBS, paying a rich cable competitor, ESPN, to end its association with an event that has been part of the foundation of CBS Sports since the 1980s.

“We live in unusual times,” said Neal Pilson, an industry consultant and former CBS Sports president.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/sports/ncaabasketball/05cbs.html?ref=sports