NCAAT Expansion

[FRANKIEFAN]

And the final was the 2nd lowest rated EVER, despite UConn going for a repeat championship against the two-time player of the year.

Men's March Madness final draws 14.82m but viewership trails women’s game for first time - SportsPro

Audience for men’s showpiece is second-lowest ever as over four million more viewers tune in for women’s finale.

www.sportspromedia.com

Late start that Monday was absolutely -ing painful waiting for that game think it was the Eclipse day unless I'm confusing things. So uncalled for waiting that long and of course game was awful.

Uconn is very bad for college basketball I know they have won plenty before but they have no football program and a boring very regional fanbase. They should have died in the AAC.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

I’m sorry. I fail to see how adding 4 or 8 more mediocre, barely over .500 teams adds anything of value. So there are more D1 teams now. So what. There really aren’t more good teams. Every year before the tourney Bilas lists 8 or so teams and guarantees the winner will be one of them. And he’s always right. In reality, there are maybe at most 20 (and that’s being generous) teams that have a reasonable chance of winning. Right now there are more than enough teams with no shot playing in what’s billed as a National Championship. Adding more chaff to the wheat won’t improve anything.

Letting in a couple teams like NC State or Indiana State will ruin it? Watching playing games at noon on Tuesday and Wednesday will cheapen the tournament?

Do you have any idea how much power the Big Ten and SEC will wield going forward if the tournament isn't expanded it will just be more teams for them and less for everyone else. Basketball is very popular right now a generation ago it wasn't even Michael Jordan's favorite sport though he was rewriting the game. NBA is a little stale with the season so long and all the load management March belongs to college basketball and the sport should do whatever it can to put on the best show possible. All day basketball on Tuesday and Wednesday of that week is a no brainer.

Thursday-Sunday is unchanged and the same as it ever was.

 

[Eric15]

You can’t look at one game in a vaccuum.

0307 my friend, in fairness, haven't you done that a few times in this thread?

In Post #7 you wrote "Pitt made it as a 12 seed at 17-12 in 1985 and lost by 24 in its opener. BC was 18-10. This year they would have been lucky to make the NIT with those records." Those cherry picked teams and records are meaningless without context. We don't know their SOS, RPI, quality wins, bad losses, etc. 10-loss teams sometimes miss the tournament and sometimes they're as high as a 3 seed.

In Post #49 you wrote "If UVA was so good they should have beat us in 2016." Again, that doesn't really mean anything. UVA was clearly better than us that year, and literally every other year we've been in the ACC (we are 3-13 against them). We rode 6-7 magical minutes of Malachi to a fantastic upset win. Richmond wasn't "better" than us in 1991, they just were better at that one moment in time.

 

[Cusefan0307]

0307 my friend, in fairness, haven't you done that a few times in this thread?

In Post #7 you wrote "Pitt made it as a 12 seed at 17-12 in 1985 and lost by 24 in its opener. BC was 18-10. This year they would have been lucky to make the NIT with those records." Those cherry picked teams and records are meaningless without context. We don't know their SOS, RPI, quality wins, bad losses, etc. 10-loss teams sometimes miss the tournament and sometimes they're as high as a 3 seed.

In Post #49 you wrote "If UVA was so good they should have beat us in 2016." Again, that doesn't really mean anything. UVA was clearly better than us that year, and literally every other year we've been in the ACC (we are 3-13 against them). We rode 6-7 magical minutes of Malachi to a fantastic upset win. Richmond wasn't "better" than us in 1991, they just were better at that one moment in time.

I followed up after and dug into the entire decade of the 80’s. You’re behind. The bottom line is saying expansion is going to allow teams with bad records in is not exactly a new phenomenon. Either you want mid majors in the tournament or we are looking at a complete P5 takeover. There’s no staying at 64(68)

 

[Sherman20]

Your last paragraph is also the counter argument too. With so many teams it’s much harder to fully analyze the field. There is no harm to expansion and all it can do is increase revenue and expand interest in the importance of making the tourney. More teams also helps with portal madness too (potentially) given part of the equation next to money is playing in the tourney.

If we want to save cbb, then to me we have to back off the snobby attitude towards having mediocre teams make the tourney from big conferences and see the bigger picture. Not to mention look at the NBA now with play ins. Just sticking with hoops as an example- the two extra seeds for play ins aren’t good teams and probably don’t deserve it, it’s not good hoops at times but it’s good for the sport. It also in both cases keeps the door open for teams that bloom extremely late or have a rough patch due to injury but could win a lot of games.

A modest tourney expansion to 76 teams is the right move and a no brainer. Lots of media members and moron fans whined and cried about the expansion from 48 to 64 teams in 1985 and then they b—ed and moaned when it went to 68 teams. Through it all, the NCAA tournament remained the best event in sports. There’s no dilution. There’s more parity in college basketball than ever before. The naysayers were wrong then and they’re wrong now.

 

[Cheriehoop]

The NCSt - Duke game had the highest viewership rating over the championship game this year. The “Cinderella“ teams like NCSt and players like DJ Burns increase viewership. Fans love an underdog. Remember the excitement by the casual fan for the Loyola Chicago, Florida Gulf Coast, VCU, Butler, Bryant etc runs in the NCAA’s? Some of these program‘s run in the NCAA’s elevated their programs interest or their coach’s stature etc by being a Cinderella. Gonzaga, Butler, Shaka Smart, Andy Enfield, Brad Stevens, Sister Jean, DJ Burns etc all became “names” after their unexpected runs in the NCAA’s. Gonzaga was a relatively unknown in 1999 when they made their first unexpected stint in the tournament. Casual fans are attracted to view the tournament cheering for a long shot to make a run.

 

[Charbroil]

A modest tourney expansion to 76 teams is the right move and a no brainer. Lots of media members and moron fans whined and cried about the expansion from 48 to 64 teams in 1985 and then they b—ed and moaned when it went to 68 teams. Through it all, the NCAA tournament remained the best event in sports. There’s no dilution. There’s more parity in college basketball than ever before. The naysayers were wrong then and they’re wrong now.

How exactly were the naysayers “wrong” about recent tournament expansions? Other than you personally supporting expansion, is there a piece of data, metric, or evidence to show that expanding the field to 68 was the right move?

 

[sam]

That’s because it was UConn and no one cares about them.

The data suggests otherwise

x.com

x.com

 

[IthacaMatt]

I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make. You can’t look at one game in a vaccuum. There’s a lot of intelligent people in this thread including yourself cherry picking small data points because you are against expansion. Sports ratings are down overall across the board. The NBA probably has been down the most.

I told you that the overall ratings for the tournament are down almost 10% in the last 10 years. I believe that the data bears that out, despite your protests.

I had a link, but didn't think it would be necessary to post, but you are sure argumentative, and switch your positions and the focus of the argument more times the longer the conversation goes on.

Here you go:

March Madness NCAA basketball TV viewership US 2024 | Statista

How many people watch March Madness? The 2024 edition of the men's tournament attracted an average TV viewership of nearly 10 million viewers in the U.S.

www.statista.com

This year's NCAA Championship game was 2nd lowest rated ever. That does not indicate a healthy product that is resonating with the audience, when girls' games are outdrawing you in your biggest game of the year.

And then you point to the play-in games having their highest ratings ever - wow. Who cares about the play-in games, unless you're in them. (Another of your arguments in this thread. No one cares after their teams are eliminated, but 67 teams get eliminated every year.)

So you point to one game not indicating anything, but again 10 year decline in viewership is factual. Not an opinion.

A big part of mass appeal of the Tournament is playing brackets at your job, and with your friends. Ignore that if you like, but it's also a fact.

The lady who is someone's secretary and picked teams based on their mascots, or where her kids went to school winds up winning the pool. Happens every year. That's part of the charm. Playing a bracket is like buying a lottery ticket, or playing parlay slips at your factory job or your corner bar in the old days.

Gambling on your phone may be the new trend, but brackets of more than 64 are ugly and not user friendly. The bracket graphic is an "app", so to speak, that literally anybody can use.

Watering down the product is not a good idea. You disagreed for 5 different reasons, but the stats say fewer people are watching. Fewer people care.

Player turnover has really hurt basketball fandom overall. Same thing with the portal. This will be a very interesting year, and 50+% roster turnover each year becomes commonplace.

 

[IthacaMatt]

A modest tourney expansion to 76 teams is the right move and a no brainer. Lots of media members and moron fans whined and cried about the expansion from 48 to 64 teams in 1985 and then they b—ed and moaned when it went to 68 teams. Through it all, the NCAA tournament remained the best event in sports. There’s no dilution. There’s more parity in college basketball than ever before. The naysayers were wrong then and they’re wrong now.

Why is it an obvious, no brainer?
Sure, mathematically, you're making every one of the bottom 4 seeds a play-in game.

How is that going to look in a bracket? What's the sense of that? I hate it for conference tournaments, too, teams playing play-ins and getting byes. It undermines what a tournament should be, in my opinion.

 

[Cappy3]

I followed up after and dug into the entire decade of the 80’s. You’re behind. The bottom line is saying expansion is going to allow teams with bad records in is not exactly a new phenomenon. Either you want mid majors in the tournament or we are looking at a complete P5 takeover. There’s no staying at 64(68)

If you think that the mid-majors will get more than 1 out of 4 or 2 out of 8 you’re on fantasy island. We’ll see more barely .500 P5 teams.

 

[Cappy3]

Letting in a couple teams like NC State or Indiana State will ruin it? Watching playing games at noon on Tuesday and Wednesday will cheapen the tournament?

Do you have any idea how much power the Big Ten and SEC will wield going forward if the tournament isn't expanded it will just be more teams for them and less for everyone else. Basketball is very popular right now a generation ago it wasn't even Michael Jordan's favorite sport though he was rewriting the game. NBA is a little stale with the season so long and all the load management March belongs to college basketball and the sport should do whatever it can to put on the best show possible. All day basketball on Tuesday and Wednesday of that week is a no brainer.

Thursday-Sunday is unchanged and the same as it ever was.

I didn’t say it would ruin anything, I said they add no value. And if you think the B10 and SEC won’t get at least half of any expanded bids, you’re dreaming. By your own logic, giving more spots to mid-majors won’t convince the P5 leagues not to go their own way.

 

[Cusefan0307]

If you think that the mid-majors will get more than 1 out of 4 or 2 out of 8 you’re on fantasy island. We’ll see more barely .500 P5 teams.

You’re going to get both.

 

[Bayside44]

You’re going to get both.

The NET type logic goes away when St. John's, Wake, Pitt, etc make the tournament.

 

[FrancoPizza]

So I guess you’d be happy with no season, just a tournament with everyone in it? The regular season is actually more meaningful than a one and done tournament when it com to determining who the best teams are.

college football regular season is so popular for a reason.

 

[FrancoPizza]

I supported changes like shortening the shot clock, players getting paid, moving the 3 point line back, etc. I’m not opposed to change.

But I am definitely resistant to needless, stupid change. Expanding the tournament falls into that category.

Exactly. The expansion isn’t driven by the need for fairness and access. It’s a money grab.

 

[FrancoPizza]

I told you that the overall ratings for the tournament are down almost 10% in the last 10 years. I believe that the data bears that out, despite your protests.

I had a link, but didn't think it would be necessary to post, but you are sure argumentative, and switch your positions and the focus of the argument more times the longer the conversation goes on.

Here you go:

March Madness NCAA basketball TV viewership US 2024 | Statista

How many people watch March Madness? The 2024 edition of the men's tournament attracted an average TV viewership of nearly 10 million viewers in the U.S.

www.statista.com

This year's NCAA Championship game was 2nd lowest rated ever. That does not indicate a healthy product that is resonating with the audience, when girls' games are outdrawing you in your biggest game of the year.

And then you point to the play-in games having their highest ratings ever - wow. Who cares about the play-in games, unless you're in them. (Another of your arguments in this thread. No one cares after their teams are eliminated, but 67 teams get eliminated every year.)

So you point to one game not indicating anything, but again 10 year decline in viewership is factual. Not an opinion.

A big part of mass appeal of the Tournament is playing brackets at your job, and with your friends. Ignore that if you like, but it's also a fact.

The lady who is someone's secretary and picked teams based on their mascots, or where her kids went to school winds up winning the pool. Happens every year. That's part of the charm. Playing a bracket is like buying a lottery ticket, or playing parlay slips at your factory job or your corner bar in the old days.

Gambling on your phone may be the new trend, but brackets of more than 64 are ugly and not user friendly. The bracket graphic is an "app", so to speak, that literally anybody can use.

Watering down the product is not a good idea. You disagreed for 5 different reasons, but the stats say fewer people are watching. Fewer people care.

Player turnover has really hurt basketball fandom overall. Same thing with the portal. This will be a very interesting year, and 50+% roster turnover each year becomes commonplace.

Fan interest in college basketball is at an all-time low. This just dilutes the only thing fans might watch… and further renders the regular season completely meaningless. I miss the days when a random regular season game meant something. College basketball used to be event viewing from December to March.

 

[Sherman20]

How exactly were the naysayers “wrong” about recent tournament expansions? Other than you personally supporting expansion, is there a piece of data, metric, or evidence to show that expanding the field to 68 was the right move?

Because the NCAA tournament remains probably the best event in all of sports. It’s widely acknowledged that the 64 team and 68 team expansions have only made the event better and nothing has been lost. Only brain dead old farts who afraid of change oppose expansion. You want data? The TV ratings and fan interest has been through the roof, and the NCAA is making more money from the tourney than ever before. Where’s YOUR data or metrics that previous expansions haven’t been the right moves?

 

[IthacaMatt]

Because the NCAA tournament remains probably the best event in all of sports. It’s widely acknowledged that the 64 team and 68 team expansions have only made the event better and nothing has been lost. Only brain dead old farts who afraid of change oppose expansion. You want data? The TV ratings and fan interest has been through the roof, and the NCAA is making more money from the tourney than ever before. Where’s YOUR data or metrics that previous expansions haven’t been the right moves?

Why don't you link us a half dozen articles saying how going from 64 to 68 with play-in games makes the tournament better? Honestly, find me two, because I NEVER heard anybody talk about having play-in games for the 16th seed ever made it "BETTER". Better yet, find me ONE.

 

[Eric15]

I think of the NCAA Tournament like my wedding. We wanted to invite people who we had a genuine connection with. Every random friend who we grew up with, or went to high school with or went to college with or second cousin didn't need to attend. Yes, more guests would mean more money that we got in gifts... but sometimes money isn't the most important thing in life. We wanted quality over quantity.

I feel the same way about the tournament. Seton Hall is the second cousin in this equation who doesn't need to attend the wedding and would probably come dressed like this.

 

[Charbroil]

Because the NCAA tournament remains probably the best event in all of sports. It’s widely acknowledged that the 64 team and 68 team expansions have only made the event better and nothing has been lost. Only brain dead old farts who afraid of change oppose expansion. You want data? The TV ratings and fan interest has been through the roof, and the NCAA is making more money from the tourney than ever before. Where’s YOUR data or metrics that previous expansions haven’t been the right moves?

First, I can’t imagine caring how much $$ the NCAA makes and using that as a way to convince someone to support expansion. If you are excited at the prospect of the NCAA making more $$ you should donate your brain to science after you pass away.

Secondly, are the ratings actually through the roof compared to previous tournaments? I honestly thought ratings have been down a little bit. Other posters on this board have been using low ratings as an argument in favor of expanding.

Thirdly, would love to see the “wide acknowledgement” that going from 64 to 68 teams improved the tournament.

Lastly, I don’t have to provide any evidence to not expand the tournament. I’m not asking for any changes to the format. You are. So the burden of proof should be on your as to why the tournament will be better with more teams.

 

[atlanticuse]

Top 300 teams. Start NCAAT in January.

 

[atlanticuse]

A modest tourney expansion to 76 teams is the right move and a no brainer. Lots of media members and moron fans whined and cried about the expansion from 48 to 64 teams in 1985 and then they b—ed and moaned when it went to 68 teams. Through it all, the NCAA tournament remained the best event in sports. There’s no dilution. There’s more parity in college basketball than ever before. The naysayers were wrong then and they’re wrong now.

Um, not entirely true.
I know a lot of folks who have stopped watching it on the grounds of quality, TV broadcasting nonsense (Fubo ≠ WarnerMedia), or their teams declining (yours truly).
I also see fewer people filling out brackets - yes, individual people are filling out MORE because it’s digital and easier/faster - but not as many as 10 years ago.
In summary, I respectfully disagree.

 

[atlanticuse]

Secondly, are the ratings actually through the roof compared to previous tournaments? I honestly thought ratings have been down a little bit. Other posters on this board have been using low ratings as an argument in favor of expanding.

Can’t participate in ratings if I can’t watch it at all.

I’m tired of playing TV gymnastics to watch games I don’t care about.

I miss raw CBS feeds from the mid-90s/early aughts when CBS was updating the stat screens live on air by mistake.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Um, not entirely true.
I know a lot of folks who have stopped watching it on the grounds of quality, TV broadcasting nonsense (Fubo ≠ WarnerMedia), or their teams declining (yours truly).
I also see fewer people filling out brackets - yes, individual people are filling out MORE because it’s digital and easier/faster - but not as many as 10 years ago.
In summary, I respectfully disagree.

The first rounds of the NCAA tournament this year drew as many fans as the final round of the masters, every NHL hockey game this year, every NBA game outside of the Finals and every baseball game last year.