NCAA Tournament Expanding.

MelroseHawkins

MelroseHawkins

Well-Known Member
Well, is reported the tourney is going to 76 teams with an expanded play-in. What a crock of chit. Nobody but the NCAA and big conferences want this. All it does is water down the regular season, just like in football. I don't like it.
 
Seth53 said:
The anwer is money.

What was the question?

:)
Click to expand...
There was never a question and obviously it's all about money. So obvious, I didn't have to even mention that. The point is they are f'ing up the absolute best sporting tournament in history. They already f'ed it up adding the play in games to 68. Nobody really even counts them or tunes into them unless your team is in it. It waters down the regular season is my point. Fans used to hang on to every game in college football throughout the season, regardless if your team was playing a crappy team or a juggernot, and the goal in basketball was to have your team in the top half of the conference.
Not anymore which sucks.

In reviewing the OP, I don't see how you got the impression I posed a question.
 
March Madness literally funds 95% of all NCAA operations. It is there last remaining cash cow. They get nothing from football--that all goes to bowls and to conferences. Most everything else is either revenue neutral or costs money. So, no shock they are trying to raise revenue through expansion.

I will withhold judgment, but my instinct reaction was its watering down the product and the regular season. That said, I was against 12 in football, and I kind of enjoyed it once in place.
 
I will just add that while I get the feel that it waters down the product, there are like 300 teams eligible for March Madness. There are closed to 100 for football. So, there is some context.

I always thought that a 4-team playoff was too exclusionary. 8 seemed like a better number. But, I like 12 and love having some games on campus. We need more of that. With 12 in football, a team like Iowa has a shot to make it.

All the professional sports seems to have well over a third of their teams make the playoffs, so.....
 
MelroseHawkins said:
There was never a question and obviously it's all about money. So obvious, I didn't have to even mention that. The point is they are f'ing up the absolute best sporting tournament in history. They already f'ed it up adding the play in games to 68. Nobody really even counts them or tunes into them unless your team is in it. It waters down the regular season is my point. Fans used to hang on to every game in college football throughout the season, regardless if your team was playing a crappy team or a juggernot, and the goal in basketball was to have your team in the top half of the conference.
Not anymore which sucks.

In reviewing the OP, I don't see how you got the impression I posed a question.
Click to expand...
Tongue in cheek my friend.
I heard that quote once on Full Ride.
Nothing more, nothing less.
 
NorthKCHawk said:
March Madness literally funds 95% of all NCAA operations. It is there last remaining cash cow. They get nothing from football--that all goes to bowls and to conferences. Most everything else is either revenue neutral or costs money. So, no shock they are trying to raise revenue through expansion.

I will withhold judgment, but my instinct reaction was its watering down the product and the regular season. That said, I was against 12 in football, and I kind of enjoyed it once in place.
Click to expand...
Afterall, how are they going to have the dough to investigate/gig Iowa for inappropriate phone calls?
 
MelroseHawkins said:
There was never a question and obviously it's all about money. So obvious, I didn't have to even mention that. The point is they are f'ing up the absolute best sporting tournament in history. They already f'ed it up adding the play in games to 68. Nobody really even counts them or tunes into them unless your team is in it. It waters down the regular season is my point. Fans used to hang on to every game in college football throughout the season, regardless if your team was playing a crappy team or a juggernot, and the goal in basketball was to have your team in the top half of the conference.
Not anymore which sucks.

In reviewing the OP, I don't see how you got the impression I posed a question.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure he was just making a joke. That's how I read it.
 
It sounds like there will be 2 sites that host the "first 12" games. Dayton and one new site that will not be in the eastern time zone.

So I am guessing Dayton will host 3 games on Tues and 3 games on Wed. Same for the other site. Unless they play 2 games at each site on Monday, but that's a really quick turn around.
 
NorthKCHawk said:
March Madness literally funds 95% of all NCAA operations. It is there last remaining cash cow. They get nothing from football--that all goes to bowls and to conferences. Most everything else is either revenue neutral or costs money. So, no shock they are trying to raise revenue through expansion.

I will withhold judgment, but my instinct reaction was its watering down the product and the regular season. That said, I was against 12 in football, and I kind of enjoyed it once in place.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't "literally" fund 95% of NCAA operations. It's far and away the biggest funding source but not "literally 95%".
Still, more is not always better. I too feel like this is watering down a great product.
 
The articles I've read state MM generates between 85-90% of the NCAA yearly budget.
(1.3 billion budget for FY 2024)
 
I don't care for this expansion at all. Nothing but a money grab. It will allow more of the major conference teams with losing records in and that's about it. Very few mid-majors will benefit from this. A very unnecessary move.
 
haydensly said:
I don't care for this expansion at all. Nothing but a money grab. It will allow more of the major conference teams with losing records in and that's about it. Very few mid-majors will benefit from this. A very unnecessary move.
Click to expand...
Not to mention, the lower you go in the "pecking order" the fewer fans (and by extension TV viewers and $) you get. The phrase "diminishing returns" comes to mind.
 
haydensly said:
I don't care for this expansion at all. Nothing but a money grab. It will allow more of the major conference teams with losing records in and that's about it. Very few mid-majors will benefit from this. A very unnecessary move.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have read and heard that it actually hurts the mid-majors more. This is all for the blue bloods or major conferences and coaches who get incentives for getting their teams into the tourney. Maybe they should structure the incentives so coaches don't get incentives for the play in games.

It messes with the seeding as well as was pointed out by a CBS analyst. Matt Cassell's co-worker.

In the women's tournament, only about 5 teams can contend now for a c-chip. They are going to really have some shitty games.

So, instead of streamlining your spending practices or changing how you run things, just easier to make lazy moves to generate more income to spend. Just like the government, especially in big cities (both parties so don't nail me on that). Easier to just tax more to spend more instead of evaluating spending and decreasing spending. I got it.
 
hawkdrummer1 said:
Not to mention, the lower you go in the "pecking order" the fewer fans (and by extension TV viewers and $) you get. The phrase "diminishing returns" comes to mind.
Click to expand...
Does anybody even watch the play-in games, other than when their team is in it? It costs a ton to facilitate the play in tournament/games. The NCAA will have to spend a lot to staff them and send them to the sites. It would be funny if fans boycotted the play-in games to make a point. Won't happen but that would be interesting. Stick the NCAA with the bill.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
Does anybody even watch the play-in games, other than when their team is in it? It costs a ton to facilitate the play in tournament/games. The NCAA will have to spend a lot to staff them and send them to the sites. It would be funny if fans boycotted the play-in games to make a point. Won't happen but that would be interesting. Stick the NCAA with the bill.
Click to expand...
To boycott something, you have to be an active participant or supporter in the first place. There aren't many fans showing up to these play-in games the way it is.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
Does anybody even watch the play-in games, other than when their team is in it? It costs a ton to facilitate the play in tournament/games. The NCAA will have to spend a lot to staff them and send them to the sites. It would be funny if fans boycotted the play-in games to make a point. Won't happen but that would be interesting. Stick the NCAA with the bill.
Click to expand...
I don't watch them either. But, they would not have expanded the tournament unless it made sense from the financial aspect of it. More games = more $$ for the NCAA.
 
haydensly said:
I don't watch them either. But, they would not have expanded the tournament unless it made sense from the financial aspect of it. More games = more $$ for the NCAA.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but this is where someone inserts a joke about the NCAA doing something that makes sense. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page



Top