King of the specious arugments

[sufandu]

You don't think there's a discrepancy between college basketball coverage Nov-Feb and March?

Not even twelve hours after the end of that game, there's no mention of Lou/IU on ESPN's home page. Hell I didn't even know they were playing until a couple hrs before tip. Two pretty big brands. And I'm a guy who's radio is almost exclusively tuned to ESPN.

I think the difference some have made is that with football, both the pros and college have one day all to themselves. Saturday is all college football all of the time and the rest of the week they don't talk too much about the games. Basketball games are sprinkled throughout the week so they'll have a quick bit on Sportcenter and then move on the other things that happened that day. If college basketball had two designated days per week, say Tuesday and Saturday, we would be bombarded on those to days, especially saturday, the same way we are with college football.

 

[HOFCeluck]

I think the difference some have made is that with football, both the pros and college have one day all to themselves. Saturday is all college football all of the time and the rest of the week they don't talk too much about the games. Basketball games are sprinkled throughout the week so they'll have a quick bit on Sportcenter and then move on the other things that happened that day. If college basketball had two designated days per week, say Tuesday and Saturday, we would be bombarded on those to days, especially saturday, the same way we are with college football.

Maybe, why doesn't the NBA have the same problem? They have at least one game every day.

 

[Millhouse]

Listen to Neil, he knows of what he speaks.

That being said, 8 is enough.

8 has always been my preferred number. 16 just adds another week that they don't need - doesn't need to be as long as the basketball tournament

if it didn't take so much time, i'd be fine with 16 teams but i don't want the playoff to take up so much time

 

[Scooch]

8 has always been my preferred number. 16 just adds another week that they don't need - doesn't need to be as long as the basketball tournament

if it didn't take so much time, i'd be fine with 16 teams but i don't want the playoff to take up so much time

I like to think of it in terms of "at what point do we want to have the argument about who gets included"?

With the BCS the argument was #2 vs #3. For a multitude of reasons that was far too fine a point. We were using a lot of flawed criteria to discern between teams that were essentially equal. Some team was always being treated unfairly.

It's an improvement to be arguing #4 vs #5, but as this year shows, I think it's still a bit too fine. At the end of the day TCU and Baylor were pretty much just as deserving as Ohio State.

I feel like arguing #8 vs #9 is a good equilibrium. At that point we're talking about 2 loss teams. Sure #9 (and probably #10, #11 and #12) would all be claiming how their wins are better than #8, and how their losses aren't as bad, etc. But... they lost two games. I think it's fair to let teams stub their toe once and still have a viable shot at the title. But I think it's also fair that in college football losing twice should most likely knock you out of the hunt.

 

[Scooch]

I should add... this is why the arguments about the last few teams getting into the NCAA hoops tourney bore me to tears.

These end up being double-digit seeds. Best that happens is one makes it to the Sweet 16. We're not talking about shutting out real title contenders, which is the purpose of a tournament of course.

 

[omniorange]

I like to think of it in terms of "at what point do we want to have the argument about who gets included"?

With the BCS the argument was #2 vs #3. For a multitude of reasons that was far too fine a point. We were using a lot of flawed criteria to discern between teams that were essentially equal. Some team was always being treated unfairly.

It's an improvement to be arguing #4 vs #5, but as this year shows, I think it's still a bit too fine. At the end of the day TCU and Baylor were pretty much just as deserving as Ohio State.

I feel like arguing #8 vs #9 is a good equilibrium. At that point we're talking about 2 loss teams. Sure #9 (and probably #10, #11 and #12) would all be claiming how their wins are better than #8, and how their losses aren't as bad, etc. But... they lost two games. I think it's fair to let teams stub their toe once and still have a viable shot at the title. But I think it's also fair that in college football losing twice should most likely knock you out of the hunt.

True, if you have 6 or so zero or 1 loss teams like this year and last. But how often does that happen?

Zero or 1 loss teams versus 2 loss teams:

2002 - 4 vs 6
2003 - 3 vs 7
2004 - 8 vs 7 (2 of the 1 loss teams were in non P5 conferences)
2005 - 5 vs 6 (2 of the 1 loss teams were in non P5 conferences)
2006 - 6 vs 9 (2 of the 0 or 1 loss teams were in non P5 conferences)
2007 - 3 vs 9 (1 of the o loss teams was in a non P5 conference)
2008 - 9 vs 2
2009 - 6 vs 6 (3 of the 0-1 loss teams were in a non P5 conference)
2010 - 9 vs 6 (3 of the 0-1 loss teams were in a non P5 conference)
2011 - 6 vs 9 (2 of the 0-1 loss teams were in a non P5 conference)
2012 - 6 vs 8 (1 of the 1 loss teams was in a non P5 conference)
2013 - 6 vs 7 (3 of the 6 1-loss teams won their CCG, while 1 of the 2 loss teams won theirs against a 2-loss team that went to 3 losses)

2014 - 6 vs 2 (the perfect storm for an 8 team playoff)

(The notations above about non P5 conferences was added at what I consider the demarcation point of college realignment, the ACC's first raid on the Big East and then I stop mentioning non P5 conferences at the point in which their truly were now a P5 in name as well fact)

Now, if the trend continues of the past two years, I believe that will be a data set point that would be a plus for the power brokers themselves to eventually expand the playoffs to 8.

However, I believe they will search for data points that will give them reason to decide not to move to an 8-team playoff. And if I am correct in that belief, and what was the norm previously returns to be the norm then your point about "losing twice should knock you out of the hunt" becomes another reason not to expand to 8 - along with protecting the regular season, having the current CCG have more meaning than they would in an 8 team playoff, the question of whether or not a non P5 champion gets an auto bid, wanting the F4 to end by January 1 or 2, etc.

Again, time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[sufandu]

Maybe, why doesn't the NBA have the same problem? They have at least one game every day.

Just like with football, pros get more talk, especially on espn, than college.

 

[OrangeFoo]

You aren't going to watch a college basketball game that doesn't involve Syracuse until March?

I might not watch a college baskeball game that does involve Syracuse until March... rock fight city.

 

[SWC75]

You don't think there's a discrepancy between college basketball coverage Nov-Feb and March?

Not even twelve hours after the end of that game, there's no mention of Lou/IU on ESPN's home page. Hell I didn't even know they were playing until a couple hrs before tip. Two pretty big brands. And I'm a guy who's radio is almost exclusively tuned to ESPN.

Anything that has it's own page linked to ESPN's front page obviously has it's fans, as does anything that makes it's front page, as that game did last night. I just checked it again and the #1 front page story is about Chris Bosh. The second one is Utah-BYU. Right now ESPN1 has an NBA game and ESPN2 has a college game. Why do you think ESPN televises all these games? It's obviously a major sport, evne if it isn't the #1 major sport.

Are you seriously arguing that if the size of the NCAA tournament were reduced that college basketball would be more popular in December? I think the tournament is too large because there are too many teams that aren't legitimate national championship contenders in there and the upset everybody loves prevent the confrontations we've waited all season to see. But college basketball fans are going to watch college basketball from November to March and those who aren't college basketball fans wouldn't become one with a reduced tournament.

 

[SWC75]

True, if you have 6 or so zero or 1 loss teams like this year and last. But how often does that happen?

Zero or 1 loss teams versus 2 loss teams:

2002 - 4 vs 6
2003 - 3 vs 7
2004 - 8 vs 7 (2 of the 1 loss teams were in non P5 conferences)
2005 - 5 vs 6 (2 of the 1 loss teams were in non P5 conferences)
2006 - 6 vs 9 (2 of the 0 or 1 loss teams were in non P5 conferences)
2007 - 3 vs 9 (1 of the o loss teams was in a non P5 conference)
2008 - 9 vs 2
2009 - 6 vs 6 (3 of the 0-1 loss teams were in a non P5 conference)
2010 - 9 vs 6 (3 of the 0-1 loss teams were in a non P5 conference)
2011 - 6 vs 9 (2 of the 0-1 loss teams were in a non P5 conference)
2012 - 6 vs 8 (1 of the 1 loss teams was in a non P5 conference)
2013 - 6 vs 7 (3 of the 6 1-loss teams won their CCG, while 1 of the 2 loss teams won theirs against a 2-loss team that went to 3 losses)

2014 - 6 vs 2 (the perfect storm for an 8 team playoff)

(The notations above about non P5 conferences was added at what I consider the demarcation point of college realignment, the ACC's first raid on the Big East and then I stop mentioning non P5 conferences at the point in which their truly were now a P5 in name as well fact)

Now, if the trend continues of the past two years, I believe that will be a data set point that would be a plus for the power brokers themselves to eventually expand the playoffs to 8.

However, I believe they will search for data points that will give them reason to decide not to move to an 8-team playoff. And if I am correct in that belief, and what was the norm previously returns to be the norm then your point about "losing twice should knock you out of the hunt" becomes another reason not to expand to 8 - along with protecting the regular season, having the current CCG have more meaning than they would in an 8 team playoff, the question of whether or not a non P5 champion gets an auto bid, wanting the F4 to end by January 1 or 2, etc.

Again, time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

A national championship tournament should have three characteristics. the first is essential if the tournament is to produce a true champion. the other two are strong preferences of mine.

1) All the teams that anybody thinks could be the bets team in the country should be in the tournament, unless they are on probation.

2) The tournament should have as few teams as possible that don't meet criteria #1 because they clutter up the tournament . When they win, it prevents the the confrontations we've waited all season to see. And if they should win, like some of our recent college basketball champions, people tend to feel that they aren't really valid champions. But this is not a strong enough consideration to violate #1.

3) I hate byes. Everybody should have to win the same number of games to win a tournament. teams that get byes are often not advantaged by them as they lose momentum while the other team gained it.

That adds up to 8 teams. Going to four teams is a halfway step to where we need to be. It's an improvement but it's not enough. And yet we see people making the same silly arguments that were made against expanding the playoff from two teams

 

[SWC75]

I like to think of it in terms of "at what point do we want to have the argument about who gets included"?

With the BCS the argument was #2 vs #3. For a multitude of reasons that was far too fine a point. We were using a lot of flawed criteria to discern between teams that were essentially equal. Some team was always being treated unfairly.

It's an improvement to be arguing #4 vs #5, but as this year shows, I think it's still a bit too fine. At the end of the day TCU and Baylor were pretty much just as deserving as Ohio State.

I feel like arguing #8 vs #9 is a good equilibrium. At that point we're talking about 2 loss teams. Sure #9 (and probably #10, #11 and #12) would all be claiming how their wins are better than #8, and how their losses aren't as bad, etc. But... they lost two games. I think it's fair to let teams stub their toe once and still have a viable shot at the title. But I think it's also fair that in college football losing twice should most likely knock you out of the hunt.

If the argument is between teams that nobody thinks is the best team in the country, then your tournament is big enough. You expand until you reach that level and stop there.

 

[SWC75]

Maybe, why doesn't the NBA have the same problem? They have at least one game every day.

There are those of us who pay little attention to the NBA and rarely talk about it.

 

[SWC75]

I got the answer and its easy. 68 team field for the NCAA Tourney. It's too big. We live in an "ALL OR NOTHING" society. If you don't win it all then your season was a failure. Just the way the modern American Sports Fan thinks and has been trained. If your "school" doesn't make the Tournament then they probably stink anyway and can't win a National Title. So, who cares. Why watch meaningless games in Nov, Dec, Jan...I will just pay attention in March when my school can WIN IT ALL!! And if they can't win it all cause they aren't in the Tournament...then I didn't miss anything this year with my favorite team!

The die-hards (like people on this message bored) and fans in college hoops hot-beds (Ken, Duke, UNC, Syr, L'ville) care about all the games. That's the minority and not the majority. They make up such a small percentage of the viewing public it doesn't even register its so small

Than why does ESPN televise so many college basketball games?

 

[SWC75]

It's one in the same. If nobody watches, nobody cares and there is no "meaning". Is it a big game with "meaning" in January if it draws a .04 rating? The rating proves the game had no meaning and nobody cared outside of the people in the arena and fans on the university campus of those 2 schools ...which is a minuet number of people in the big picture.

College basketball's regular season has been watered down to the point it has become an after thought across this nation. People pay attention in March and that's a fact. Before March people just don't care and the games have no meaning because nobody is watching them.

Adding more teams to the football playoff of course waters down the regular season. Not debatable. Instead of arguing over who is #1 and #2 you start to argue over who is #8 and #9. Then you go to 16 and argue over who is #16 and #17 when neither of those teams (whether 8, 9, 16, or 17) are probably any good and deserve to be in the playoff anyway. The difference is sport of course matters when determining the playoff. 4 is a solid number for football, I wouldn't go past that for football honestly. I would have had no problem keeping it at 2.

But this notion college basketball hasn't destroyed its regular season is silly. It has killed it to the point it can never come back. It's a 1 month sport. And that 1 month is amazing!

The NCAA tournament started 75 years ago. How would you know if it's destroyed anything? College basketball is far more popular now than it was then, or even for decades afterwards. The tournament has created interest in the game and thus in the regular season. We're already talking how many games Syracuse can afford to lose in this part of the season without jeopardizing it's chances to get into the tournament.

And anyone who paid attention to this college football season knows there were more games that mattered to the 4 team playoff than there had been under a two team playoff. If this season was "watered down" it was by Red Bull. An 8 team playoff would make the regular season even more interesting. The tipping point where the playoff makes the regular season less interesting because too many teams are included is way beyond 8 of 125 teams.

 

[omniorange]

A national championship tournament should have three characteristics. the first is essential if the tournament is to produce a true champion. the other two are strong preferences of mine.

1) All the teams that anybody thinks could be the bets team in the country should be in the tournament, unless they are on probation.

2) The tournament should have as few teams as possible that don't meet criteria #1 because they clutter up the tournament . When they win, it prevents the the confrontations we've waited all season to see. And if they should win, like some of our recent college basketball champions, people tend to feel that they aren't really valid champions. But this is not a strong enough consideration to violate #1.

3) I hate byes. Everybody should have to win the same number of games to win a tournament. teams that get byes are often not advantaged by them as they lose momentum while the other team gained it.

That adds up to 8 teams. Going to four teams is a halfway step to where we need to be. It's an improvement but it's not enough. And yet we see people making the same silly arguments that were made against expanding the playoff from two teams

#1 is truly the only one of the above that matters.

And more often than not, it only takes 4 teams to ensure #1 comes about.

Again, my personal preference doesn't matter. It may eventually expand to 8, but right now I stand by my belief that too many things need to still happen before the power brokers come around to your way of thinking.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Stern]

Than why does ESPN televise so many college basketball games?

It's cheap programming that's why they air it. Filler programming. 2 hours and low production costs

 

[SmilinBob]

If you keep it at 4 there is no way in heck schools will schedule a tough OOC and take a chance at getting 1 or 2 losses. Comparing 1 and two losses. For 2014 2 losses booted you out of the 4 and what if a team with 2 losses scheduled tough OOC games while 1 loss didn't? What if Michigan St didn't play Oregon and lose? The pundits are after Baylor even though all of the top 6 teams didn't schedule 2 P5's except for FSU who had 3. I believe the intent of scheduling 3 P5's should be awarded as well.

8 is the best answer and it to me as it enhances the chances of scheduling a tougher OOC because if you don't win your conference which only 1 team can...you can get a shot by doing it on the field by beating good competition and getting 1 of the 3 open slots. Again, it drives me crazy when people go after the two loss team when they actually went out there and scheduled a tough OOC and the 1 loss didn't. This is also a big reason why I want the P5 winners to get an auto bid.