|
|
Post by hchoops on Mar 5, 2024 12:12:33 GMT -5
If there's one positive from the report of potential March Madness expansion, it's that the NCAA doesn't seem to be considering a massive increase in the number of participant. Per Dana O'Neil's report in The Arhletic, the likely scenario — should expansion occur — is that the field would increase to either 72 or 76 teams
That is bad news- which could be worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Mar 5, 2024 18:32:50 GMT -5
If there's one positive from the report of potential March Madness expansion, it's that the NCAA doesn't seem to be considering a massive increase in the number of participant. Per Dana O'Neil's report in The Arhletic, the likely scenario — should expansion occur — is that the field would increase to either 72 or 76 teams That is bad news- which could be worse. Why would the membership vote for something bad? I wonder how Vince or his proxies will vote on this proposal. I hope it's not going to be decided by Charlie Baker or a small committee, but rather requires a majority vote of the member schools. Not sure if it is more fair for all members to vite or just D-1. I think either 68 or 72 slots is in the ballpark ratio of FCS tournament berths to FCS teams. |
|
|
|
Post by sader81 on Mar 5, 2024 20:08:11 GMT -5
Go to 128. It’s just one more game. 72 or 76 is just a way to knock more non power 5 teams out in the play in games.
|
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Mar 9, 2024 10:12:09 GMT -5
Go to 128. It’s just one more game. 72 or 76 is just a way to knock more non power 5 teams out in the play in games. I think 80 is the max as far as not extending the number of days to get the field whittled down to 64. 8 games a night. I can see having 8 16's instead of the current 6. After that, I'd do something like they do now with the 11s. To get to 128; you have to add another weekend to the thing. I don't see that weekend being very attractive to viewers. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Mar 9, 2024 10:59:35 GMT -5
Go to 128. It’s just one more game. 72 or 76 is just a way to knock more non power 5 teams out in the play in games. Where do you do it? Do you use the current sites and make everyone play a Tues/Wed game at the weekend location? That means 8 games on Tues/Wed. at every site. Kind of unwieldy? Spread it out to another weekend? Do you use additional sites (like now with Dayton)? Instead of 4 teams making the quick logistical quick jump to the next site, now it's 64. And the big guys have a two day turn around with travel Go back to 64. Heck - half of us rabid fans don't think that a play in game counts enough to call it an NCAA win. John Q Public doesn't even recognize the first round exists now. Why make it bigger. I get the fact that as more and more programs jump into D-I, 64 is a smaller percentage. Sadly it is likely to go the way of D-I football and get turned into sub divisions (maybe a college division and a pro division - we're already half way there) |
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Mar 9, 2024 13:29:31 GMT -5
Go to 128. It’s just one more game. 72 or 76 is just a way to knock more non power 5 teams out in the play in games. Where do you do it? Do you use the current sites and make everyone play a Tues/Wed game at the weekend location? That means 8 games on Tues/Wed. at every site. Kind of unwieldy? Spread it out to another weekend? Do you use additional sites (like now with Dayton)? Instead of 4 teams making the quick logistical quick jump to the next site, now it's 64. And the big guys have a two day turn around with travel Go back to 64. Heck - half of us rabid fans don't think that a play in game counts enough to call it an NCAA win. John Q Public doesn't even recognize the first round exists now. Why make it bigger. I get the fact that as more and more programs jump into D-I, 64 is a smaller percentage. Sadly it is likely to go the way of D-I football and get turned into sub divisions (maybe a college division and a pro division - we're already half way there)NCAA tournament TV contract value goes in the toilet if that happens though. One thing that's nice about March Madness is that the big schools and the small schools have a somewhat symbiotic relationship. Of course TPTB at the big schools hate that that's the case, but it is. If the top 6 conferences go and form their own division, people will still watch the Final Four and maybe you get decent viewership for the Regional Finals but that's it. People aren't to watch 12 straight hours of basketball for back to back days when the reward is getting to see Minnesota upset Kansas, as opposed to Bucknell upsetting Kansas. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Mar 10, 2024 15:01:22 GMT -5
Where do you do it? Do you use the current sites and make everyone play a Tues/Wed game at the weekend location? That means 8 games on Tues/Wed. at every site. Kind of unwieldy? Spread it out to another weekend? Do you use additional sites (like now with Dayton)? Instead of 4 teams making the quick logistical quick jump to the next site, now it's 64. And the big guys have a two day turn around with travel Go back to 64. Heck - half of us rabid fans don't think that a play in game counts enough to call it an NCAA win. John Q Public doesn't even recognize the first round exists now. Why make it bigger. I get the fact that as more and more programs jump into D-I, 64 is a smaller percentage. Sadly it is likely to go the way of D-I football and get turned into sub divisions (maybe a college division and a pro division - we're already half way there)NCAA tournament TV contract value goes in the toilet if that happens though. One thing that's nice about March Madness is that the big schools and the small schools have a somewhat symbiotic relationship. Of course TPTB at the big schools hate that that's the case, but it is. If the top 6 conferences go and form their own division, people will still watch the Final Four and maybe you get decent viewership for the Regional Finals but that's it. People aren't to watch 12 straight hours of basketball for back to back days when the reward is getting to see Minnesota upset Kansas, as opposed to Bucknell upsetting Kansas. Are the power schools smart enough to know that? Adding tourney teams will reduce the chance of some of those big upsets |
|
|
|
Post by res on Mar 10, 2024 16:21:13 GMT -5
They're smart enough to know that, but they're too "proud" to accept that.
And, by "proud", I mean "cognitively dissonant".
|
|
