bcl20
Well-Known Member
It might be the most entertaining way but it isn't the best way.
There was once a thread on this board asking whether...
- Thread starter GodGodGodBathia
- Start date
It might be the most entertaining way but it isn't the best way.
HawkForce
Well-Known Member
All post-season's have their merits...because while many do not like the bowls...At least football's regular season is always going to mean something...Think about this...a team like Iowa last season, while not plausible, could have made the NCAA tournament by getting hot for 3 days in March...much like a couple years ago when a team with a losing record made it to the 4A state bball tournament...you're telling me that was one of the top 8 teams in the state??? no.
But every system has it's drawbacks...
But every system has it's drawbacks...
GhostofBTT
Banned
Since the regular season in basketball sucks, and if they expand the tournament it will suck more, I would have to say Football, since that way every week would be the most important week of all, rather than basketball season where there would be maybe 4 interesting weeks
HaydensDad
Well-Known Member
Football. The fact is more people care. A lot more people.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
It's entertaining, but the best team rarely wins the whole thing. One and done sets up the Cinderella stories. I'll never forget watching the 2006 UCONN-George Mason game in the Elite Eight. But UCONN was the better team, just not on THAT night. Everybody has off nights, and everyone has "play out of our mind" nights. George Mason had one of those nights, and UCONN had a typical night (not "off", but not their best either). And they won. But UCONN wins 9 out of 10. I love the format, and don't want it changed by any means. I'm just saying that the best way to do it is a series. That's why you rarely see Cinderella stories in MLB or the NHL, as opposed to the Miracle on Ice. In a series format, 99% of the time the better team wins, and the success rate is nowhere near that high in the NCAA tournament. Hence it isn't the BEST way to do it, it's just the most fun to watch. But please, don't change it!
PLEASE! Is it really that entertaining when the vast majority of the games are played in empty arenas? SERIOUSLY! What is entertaining is filling out the brackets and the very real possibility that a much better team will tank. It's gambling. That is what is entertaining. Basically a way for the whole country to gamble together. Except there are some factors that influence odds beyond blind luck.
However, this does not translate to people actually wanting to go see these games, which really calls their entertainment value into question.
However, this does not translate to people actually wanting to go see these games, which really calls their entertainment value into question.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Right, because people just love to shell out big bucks to go and watch tournament games (not to mention travel expenses), for what (you would hope anyway) is a 7-game ride. I know I sure as hell wouldn't be going to every game. Doesn't mean I don't watch them all. And my team isn't in there very often these days, so why should I really care at all? I also don't put money on my bracket, I just like to see how it all goes.
And you're telling me that those games aren't exciting? Dude get a pulse. Even games that the underdogs don't win can be downright riveting. Take Robert Morris nearly knocking off Villanova, or Montana almost upsetting New Mexico. Or Sienna coming close against Purdue. It's not always the upsets that make it great. It's the fact that no game is a total pushover, if you overlook one, you get beat. Period.
There were what, 3 or 4 buzzer beaters in the first weekend? UNI-UNLV, MSU-Maryland, Wake Forest-Texas. That's entertainment dude, and if you disagree then you need to find out what it's like to step out of your mom's basement
Again, if it was so entertaining then why don't people in local communities go watch the games. There are three games per arena over two days. I have gone to a regional. Coincidentally, Iowa was one if the teams, before I was a fan. They are not that expensive, when you consider the fact that you get to see four games. And still people don't go. Sorry, but this can't be reasoned away just because of the economy. It has been this way in good times and bad times. People just don't consider these games worthy if their entertainment dollars.
Yes, there are buzzer beaters and upsets. This makes the last 2 minutes of every game
exciting. But people just don't want to shell out the cash to watch the whole game. Also,
the television ratings are not that great- particularly on the coasts.
It works for TV, because the odds are if there are that many games being played at one time that the network will be able to find something compelling.
Yes, there are buzzer beaters and upsets. This makes the last 2 minutes of every game
exciting. But people just don't want to shell out the cash to watch the whole game. Also,
the television ratings are not that great- particularly on the coasts.
It works for TV, because the odds are if there are that many games being played at one time that the network will be able to find something compelling.
That is an interesting take. What if the Rose Bowl was USC / Michigan, the Sugar Florida / OU, the Fiesta Texas / Bama, the Orange Miami / Oregon and all these teams were one loss teams and then the NC Game was Iowa / Boise. Do you think the NC Game could actually end up drawing the lowest rating of that list?
