Here's the committee's official 1-68 rankings if you're curious

Xerxes said:
Nationally, none of those teams will draw much in the ratings. The 2014 group is more recognizable in terms of their names. If ratings were a big deal to them you would think they wouldn't broadcast the games on TruTV, but CBS instead.
Click to expand...

Nah, moving toward a pay per view model. TruTV subscriptions are up drastically in the past few days due to the announced teams.
 
I dont know if the ad revenues are in levels that will be altered by the teams in these matchups. I have no idea what the ratings were last year or if cbs can charge more if they go up by 20%.

I am only interested in one game and will not watch the other three.

I have never watched a previous play in game.

I just think the drop in the bucket of the $billions of $ for the whole tourney contract compared to these 4 games is being overstated.
 
uihawk82 said:
And of course most logical people would think that the teams in spots 61-68 would be playing tuesday and wednesday in the play in games even if they are conference tourney champs.

This tourney selection business is getting really busterized
Click to expand...
I agree, I've never understood why especially when some have losing records are a 16 seed and they get a first round bye.
 
ICHawk24 said:
The play in games are the final four at larges, and the final four auto bids. Its pretty simple.

The reliance on RPI (which anyone with a clue dislikes) is the reason that SLU was so high and Louisville so low.
Click to expand...

It is fairly logical. The tournament was expanded to sixty-eight teams to allow four more at-large berths. Those four teams play in the first round. Iowa wouldn't be in the tournament without the expansion. So instead of complaining about the play-in game, Hawk fans should be happy there is such a thing as a play-in game.
 
ColumbusHawk said:
It is fairly logical. The tournament was expanded to sixty-eight teams to allow four more at-large berths. Those four teams play in the first round. Iowa wouldn't be in the tournament without the expansion. So instead of complaining about the play-in game, Hawk fans should be happy there is such a thing as a play-in game.
Click to expand...

Naw I'm so much against the stupid play in games that I would be fine if we were left out.

All they had to do was beat a lousy NW team and they wouldn't be in this mess. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
 
mopkins said:
Is it really that unbelievable? March Madness is a billion dollar business partnership with CBS and its affiliates. Which group of teams listed above are going to get more ratings nationally?
Click to expand...

If the NCAA and CBS was going to conspire to maximize ratings and revenue, the First Four on TruTV is not where they'd choose to maximize those ratings. No matter who plays in these games, they're gonna get poor ratings.

If, by your theory, they purposely put the ratings blockbusters Iowa/Tennessee/Xavier/NC State in the First Four, they are, by definition, removing half of those teams from the Thursday/Friday games, the games that CBS actually gives a crap about.
 
ICHawk24 said:
If the NCAA and CBS was going to conspire to maximize ratings and revenue, the First Four on TruTV is not where they'd choose to maximize those ratings. No matter who plays in these games, they're gonna get poor ratings.

If, by your theory, they purposely put the ratings blockbusters Iowa/Tennessee/Xavier/NC State in the First Four, they are, by definition, removing half of those teams from the Thursday/Friday games, the games that CBS actually gives a crap about.
Click to expand...

It gets better ratings than lizard lick... #bookit
 
Half the play in teams are at large not all of them. Four teams for 16 seeds and four for 11&12 seed spots.

When they expanded four teams in the tournament it was the smaller conferences that argued for at large teams to be part of the expanded teams. While they may not have had much leverage in they're argument, it does help the ratings. So it'd been this way for five or so years since they went to 68 teams.

Before technically the field was 66 teams... Correct? They just always referred to it as 64 with two spots considered play in?
 
smhawk said:
Half the play in teams are at large not all of them. Four teams for 16 seeds and four for 11&12 seed spots.

When they expanded four teams in the tournament it was the smaller conferences that argued for at large teams to be part of the expanded teams. While they may not have had much leverage in they're argument, it does help the ratings. So it'd been this way for five or so years since they went to 68 teams.

Before technically the field was 66 teams... Correct? They just always referred to it as 64 with two spots considered play in?
Click to expand...

Well, I think it was the field of 65 when it was just a pair of 16 seeds playing a single play-in game. 1 moves on, one goes home, and you end up with 64 teams.

Now it's a 68 team field, with 8 teams playing play-in games, with 4 moving on and 4 going home, to get back down to a 64 team field.
 
The conference teams that had to win their tournaments should have to play the 'first round' games to go further. But then the NCAA doesn't earn as big a pay day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top