(03-23-2024 07:48 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Expanding the NCAA Tourney devalues the regular season and in particular conference tournaments. I do not think it is worth the trade off for more money and opportunity.

I don't think that's really the case though. The actual regular season is not being devalued any from a TV ratings or ticket sales standpoint anymore than what already exists by the emphasis on the conference tourneys we have now.

TV ratings for regular season college basketball aren't suffering from "the regular season is meaningless," it's that people like football more than basketball, and regular season professional basketball more than regular season college basketball. Once there's stakes, the TV ratings for college hoops do fine.

The conference tourneys aren't going to be affected very much by expanding the tournament. You have TV ratings to look at now for these conferences with 14+ teams where "everyone in the semis is an NCAA lock" (well, not really this year outside the Big 12) and they have better TV ratings than conferences where the stakes for dozens of teams are affected (The American for example).

I barely watch the P6 conference tourneys because most the games don't really have stakes: Duke vs UNC, they're both locks, who cares. I'm watching the bid stealing games to see how that affects the bubble, and the "deserve a bid but won't get one, so don't screw this up" games like James Madison. But I'm absolutely in the minority.

The conference tourneys are 1-3 opportunities for resume building in the big conferences, and for bragging rights. They're just fun big parties for people who love college hoops.


The big concern for me with expansion to something other than 128 is that the real star of March Madness is THE BRACKET ITSELF. You had a perfect 64-team bracket, then added the Opening Round where they just listed "16 Howard/Wagner" and only a lunatic was picking the 16. No big deal.

NOW we have the First Four providing two "slashes" on the R64 bracket, and you just pick that slot to advance if you want; but sometimes it's a bummer where you're like "I think Colorado can beat Florida, but I don't think Boise can."

What is going to happen with 16 "slashes" on the R64 bracket? What is THAT going to do to people's interest? Whereas, I think with a 128-team field, doing eight regions of 16 instead of four (with 2 AQs, as much as some go ballistic at the thought) would just be double what captivated people the last 40 years. The casual people would just be like "it feels like this March Madness is longer...." but not notice any difference.

And I think that the diehards would just either already know, or realize that the only difference between a six seed now (like Texas Tech) and a team that is 85 in the NET and only gets an 11 seed if they win their conference tourney (NC State) is just consistency over 30 games and not really talent/skill. So there wouldn't really be any kind of drop off whatsoever. You'd just get double the 64-team bracket perfection we got before, and what we've loved about "the first Thursday/Friday of the tournament" we'd get six days of that instead of two.

(03-23-2024 07:48 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Expanding the NCAA Tourney devalues the regular season and in particular conference tournaments. I do not think it is worth the trade off for more money and opportunity.

Assuming adequate financial gain; I would rather dump the conference tourneys and the NIT, shorten the regular season, and include all schools in the NCAA Tourney than expand to 80 schools. The first rounds could incorporate the play-in games concept.

Conference tourney devalues regular season. Most conferences should do away with them. Especially if they are not money makers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-24-2024 08:49 AM)indianasniff Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 07:48 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Expanding the NCAA Tourney devalues the regular season and in particular conference tournaments. I do not think it is worth the trade off for more money and opportunity.

Assuming adequate financial gain; I would rather dump the conference tourneys and the NIT, shorten the regular season, and include all schools in the NCAA Tourney than expand to 80 schools. The first rounds could incorporate the play-in games concept.

Conference tourney devalues regular season. Most conferences should do away with them. Especially if they are not money makers

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know about doing away with conference tourneys, but how about only so many teams qualify for their conference tourney rather than all teams making it like how the B1G and ACC are planning with 15 of 18 teams making it. That can add value to their regular season with the addrd risk of missing your conference tourney. Maybe do something like this for conferences.

8-9 team leagues - 6 team bracket (what Ivy should be)
10-11 team leagues - 8 team ladder bracket (OVC bracket)
12 team leagues - 10 team ladder bracket (WCC bracket w/ 10 teams)
13-14 team leagues - 11 team bracket (MWC bracket)
15 team leagues - 12 team bracket (MVC bracket)
16 team leagues - 14 team ladder bracket (current B1G bracket)
17-18 team leagues - 15 team ladder bracket (currently ACC bracket)
19+ team leagues - 16 team ladder bracket (old Big East bracket)

I actually think that tournament expansion could increase the value of the regular season.

Fans, boosters, students and recruiting respond to BANNERS. More banners = more interest, excitement, attendance.

You go 128-teams with 2 AQs each, and you have a lot more interest in 78% of college basketball.

(03-25-2024 11:59 AM)JSchmack Wrote:  I actually think that tournament expansion could increase the value of the regular season.

Fans, boosters, students and recruiting respond to BANNERS. More banners = more interest, excitement, attendance.

You go 128-teams with 2 AQs each, and you have a lot more interest in 78% of college basketball.

It's not happening. TV doesn't want dreg conferences to get 2 bids. Period the end. If TV wanted expansion, it'd be at most to 96. With all 28 bids being at large spots. That is what TV wants. That is what power conferences want. Keep dreaming if you think 2 AQ has any prayer at all of happening.

I prefer 96 myself. The First Four is a bit clunky, to use Pete's word for it. Some people still don't recognize it as part of the tournament. Expanding the field to any number less than 96 necessarily entails expansion of the First Four. But with a field of 96, you eliminate the First Four and replace it with a cleaner first round. You also eliminate the need for AQ/at-large distinction in determining who plays in that round, which I always thought was unfair to the at-large teams.

Here's my suggestion on television:

First Round: Thursday/Friday. 16 games each day, quadruple headers across four networks. (Note: top 8 seeds in each regional receive first round byes.)

Second Round: Saturday/Sunday. . 16 games each day, quadruple headers across four networks.

Third round: Thursday/Friday. 8 games each day, double headers across four networks.

Sweet 16: Saturday/Sunday. 4 games each day, discrete game times for each game.

Elite 8: Wednesday/Thursday. Two games/day, both at discrete times.

Final 4: Saturday. Two games at discrete times.

National championship: Monday.

Elite 8 moved up one day so Final Four could be played Saturday vs. Sunday to accommodate BYU. The first round TV problem is alleviated somewhat by first round being restricted to generally less prominent teams (seeds 9-24 in each regional.)

(03-25-2024 01:01 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  I prefer 96 myself. The First Four is a bit clunky, to use Pete's word for it. Some people still don't recognize it as part of the tournament. Expanding the field to any number less than 96 necessarily entails expansion of the First Four. But with a field of 96, you eliminate the First Four and replace it with a cleaner first round. You also eliminate the need for AQ/at-large distinction in determining who plays in that round, which I always thought was unfair to the at-large teams.

Here's my suggestion on television:

First Round: Thursday/Friday. 16 games each day, quadruple headers across four networks. (Note: top 8 seeds in each regional receive first round byes.)

Second Round: Saturday/Sunday. . 16 games each day, quadruple headers across four networks.

Third round: Thursday/Friday. 8 games each day, double headers across four networks.

Sweet 16: Saturday/Sunday. 4 games each day, discrete game times for each game.

Elite 8: Wednesday/Thursday. Two games/day, both at discrete times.

Final 4: Saturday. Two games at discrete times.

National championship: Monday.

Elite 8 moved up one day so Final Four could be played Saturday vs. Sunday to accommodate BYU. The first round TV problem is alleviated somewhat by first round being restricted to generally less prominent teams (seeds 9-24 in each regional.)

The ratings a few years ago when they did elite 8 on weeknights were horrible(while rest of tourney drew good ratings). Just don't think we see things change much there. 1st round with 9/24, 10/23, etc. would be Tue/Wed, then 2nd rd Thu/Fri, 3rd rd Sat/Sun. and so on.

(03-25-2024 01:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 01:01 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  I prefer 96 myself. The First Four is a bit clunky, to use Pete's word for it. Some people still don't recognize it as part of the tournament. Expanding the field to any number less than 96 necessarily entails expansion of the First Four. But with a field of 96, you eliminate the First Four and replace it with a cleaner first round. You also eliminate the need for AQ/at-large distinction in determining who plays in that round, which I always thought was unfair to the at-large teams.

Here's my suggestion on television:

First Round: Thursday/Friday. 16 games each day, quadruple headers across four networks. (Note: top 8 seeds in each regional receive first round byes.)

Second Round: Saturday/Sunday. . 16 games each day, quadruple headers across four networks.

Third round: Thursday/Friday. 8 games each day, double headers across four networks.

Sweet 16: Saturday/Sunday. 4 games each day, discrete game times for each game.

Elite 8: Wednesday/Thursday. Two games/day, both at discrete times.

Final 4: Saturday. Two games at discrete times.

National championship: Monday.

Elite 8 moved up one day so Final Four could be played Saturday vs. Sunday to accommodate BYU. The first round TV problem is alleviated somewhat by first round being restricted to generally less prominent teams (seeds 9-24 in each regional.)

The ratings a few years ago when they did elite 8 on weeknights were horrible(while rest of tourney drew good ratings). Just don't think we see things change much there. 1st round with 9/24, 10/23, etc. would be Tue/Wed, then 2nd rd Thu/Fri, 3rd rd Sat/Sun. and so on.

I can't see them doing 16 games on Tuesday and 16 games on Wednesday. That's a logistics nightmare to get everyone to their next destination with only 40 hours between Selection Sunday and the start of Tuesday games. Also, people aren't going to take off work 4 days that week - which they would need to get enough viewers for Tue/Wed afternoon.

Also, that only leaves 40 hours between the brackets being released and the games starting. A huge part of the popularity of March Madness permeating through people who aren't college basketball fans is filling out brackets. If you cut that time for them to fillout a bracket from 90 hours to 40 hours, that's taking the lead-up exposure away from a significant portion of casuals.

(03-25-2024 01:16 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 01:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 01:01 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  I prefer 96 myself. The First Four is a bit clunky, to use Pete's word for it. Some people still don't recognize it as part of the tournament. Expanding the field to any number less than 96 necessarily entails expansion of the First Four. But with a field of 96, you eliminate the First Four and replace it with a cleaner first round. You also eliminate the need for AQ/at-large distinction in determining who plays in that round, which I always thought was unfair to the at-large teams.

Here's my suggestion on television:

First Round: Thursday/Friday. 16 games each day, quadruple headers across four networks. (Note: top 8 seeds in each regional receive first round byes.)

Second Round: Saturday/Sunday. . 16 games each day, quadruple headers across four networks.

Third round: Thursday/Friday. 8 games each day, double headers across four networks.

Sweet 16: Saturday/Sunday. 4 games each day, discrete game times for each game.

Elite 8: Wednesday/Thursday. Two games/day, both at discrete times.

Final 4: Saturday. Two games at discrete times.

National championship: Monday.

Elite 8 moved up one day so Final Four could be played Saturday vs. Sunday to accommodate BYU. The first round TV problem is alleviated somewhat by first round being restricted to generally less prominent teams (seeds 9-24 in each regional.)

The ratings a few years ago when they did elite 8 on weeknights were horrible(while rest of tourney drew good ratings). Just don't think we see things change much there. 1st round with 9/24, 10/23, etc. would be Tue/Wed, then 2nd rd Thu/Fri, 3rd rd Sat/Sun. and so on.

I can't see them doing 16 games on Tuesday and 16 games on Wednesday. That's a logistics nightmare to get everyone to their next destination with only 40 hours between Selection Sunday and the start of Tuesday games. Also, people aren't going to take off work 4 days that week - which they would need to get enough viewers for Tue/Wed afternoon.

Also, that only leaves 40 hours between the brackets being released and the games starting. A huge part of the popularity of March Madness permeating through people who aren't college basketball fans is filling out brackets. If you cut that time for them to fillout a bracket from 90 hours to 40 hours, that's taking the lead-up exposure away from a significant portion of casuals.

hence why realistically we're probably never going to 96 for quite a while. I think we just see Dayton expanded.

(03-25-2024 01:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 01:01 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  I prefer 96 myself. The First Four is a bit clunky, to use Pete's word for it. Some people still don't recognize it as part of the tournament. Expanding the field to any number less than 96 necessarily entails expansion of the First Four. But with a field of 96, you eliminate the First Four and replace it with a cleaner first round. You also eliminate the need for AQ/at-large distinction in determining who plays in that round, which I always thought was unfair to the at-large teams.

Here's my suggestion on television:

First Round: Thursday/Friday. 16 games each day, quadruple headers across four networks. (Note: top 8 seeds in each regional receive first round byes.)

Second Round: Saturday/Sunday. . 16 games each day, quadruple headers across four networks.

Third round: Thursday/Friday. 8 games each day, double headers across four networks.

Sweet 16: Saturday/Sunday. 4 games each day, discrete game times for each game.

Elite 8: Wednesday/Thursday. Two games/day, both at discrete times.

Final 4: Saturday. Two games at discrete times.

National championship: Monday.

Elite 8 moved up one day so Final Four could be played Saturday vs. Sunday to accommodate BYU. The first round TV problem is alleviated somewhat by first round being restricted to generally less prominent teams (seeds 9-24 in each regional.)

The ratings a few years ago when they did elite 8 on weeknights were horrible(while rest of tourney drew good ratings). Just don't think we see things change much there. 1st round with 9/24, 10/23, etc. would be Tue/Wed, then 2nd rd Thu/Fri, 3rd rd Sat/Sun. and so on.

I could be wrong about this, but I thought Elite 8 had always been played on Saturday/Sunday, or at least since the field was expanded to 64 in 1985. If so, I don't think we can trust TV ratings that are going on 40 years old or older.

(03-25-2024 02:14 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 01:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 01:01 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  I prefer 96 myself. The First Four is a bit clunky, to use Pete's word for it. Some people still don't recognize it as part of the tournament. Expanding the field to any number less than 96 necessarily entails expansion of the First Four. But with a field of 96, you eliminate the First Four and replace it with a cleaner first round. You also eliminate the need for AQ/at-large distinction in determining who plays in that round, which I always thought was unfair to the at-large teams.

Here's my suggestion on television:

First Round: Thursday/Friday. 16 games each day, quadruple headers across four networks. (Note: top 8 seeds in each regional receive first round byes.)

Second Round: Saturday/Sunday. . 16 games each day, quadruple headers across four networks.

Third round: Thursday/Friday. 8 games each day, double headers across four networks.

Sweet 16: Saturday/Sunday. 4 games each day, discrete game times for each game.

Elite 8: Wednesday/Thursday. Two games/day, both at discrete times.

Final 4: Saturday. Two games at discrete times.

National championship: Monday.

Elite 8 moved up one day so Final Four could be played Saturday vs. Sunday to accommodate BYU. The first round TV problem is alleviated somewhat by first round being restricted to generally less prominent teams (seeds 9-24 in each regional.)

The ratings a few years ago when they did elite 8 on weeknights were horrible(while rest of tourney drew good ratings). Just don't think we see things change much there. 1st round with 9/24, 10/23, etc. would be Tue/Wed, then 2nd rd Thu/Fri, 3rd rd Sat/Sun. and so on.

I could be wrong about this, but I thought Elite 8 had always been played on Saturday/Sunday, or at least since the field was expanded to 64 in 1985. If so, I don't think we can trust TV ratings that are going on 40 years old or older.

The 2021 bubble tournament. Had incredible ratings thru sweet 16, but then I believe record low ratings for the elite 8.