Official press release from the NCAA: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaah...+agreement+rls
Sadly, I think that the 96-team tournament is still on the way, but it won't be happening next year. The good part about this is that every first and second round game will be on a different station, so no more criticism of not being able to watch a particular game.
CBS Sports has broadcast the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championship since 1982. This year’s broadcast of the Championship game earned an average national household rating/share of 14.2/23, up 31% from a 10.8/18 last year, the highest rating in five years.
I guess all that Duke hatred translates into viewership! :rolleyes:
68 teams---each region gets a play-in game, I guess?
Glad to see the extended coverage for early round games
So that kills the DirecTV monopoly on Mega March Madness, yes? (I mean, I suppose DirecTV could still offer such a package, but there's no point to it since everything will be on the regular channels). I'll trade a 68 team tournament for that. Question, though - are the play-in games all going to be for 16 seeds? Or will the last 8 at large teams have to face off in opening round matchups? Because I would greatly prefer the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by arydolphin
Limiting the NCAA tournament to 68 teams is good news for UNC. They will have a chance to come back and win the NIT next year!:D
Beats the 96-team alternative (at least for now).
Nice to have all the games available, of course, although it'll be strange to see the Final Four on TBS in a few years. Will TBS retain the CBS production? Not that CBS does it perfectly, but the CBS approach/music/graphics/etc. are kinda tournament tradition at this point.
From espn:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5125307
The story is CBS will retain the rights, but they're adding Turner Broadcasting as well. This means every game will be shown in its entirety on different networks (think TBS, TNT).
Also, I can't really tell from the article, but it looks like they decided against the 96 team tournament, and opted instead to go with 68.
Pros: No 96 team tourney (yet), I can watch every Duke game without a special package, and the play-in round becomes mildly more interesting.
Con: I will now have to listen to Kenny Smith before, at the half, and after Duke games.
Recommend merging w/thread started on this topic 40 minutes ago.
Great news! It seems like they still could theoretically increase it to 96 teams during their April 29th meeting...but that sounds unlikely at least for this year. Perhaps 96 will be farther down the road, but I hope not. At least we get to watch all the games on TV at once; that's certainly a welcome development.
Yeah, they definitely aren't clear if the additional teams are simply going to be play-in games. Honestly, if they want better TV ratings/revenue, they should make the at-large bubble teams play in those opening round games. Would people rather view Arkansas-Pine Bluff vs. Winthrop or a Virginia Tech - Illinois matchup? Clearly, the latter is going to get better ratings and then you still reward teams for winning their conference tournament. Just my opinion...But then you'd probably have to put them as an at-large into like a #12 seed or something like that, so that might logistically not make sense.
I apologize, totally missed the other thread. *Shame*
Winners
Number 1 seeds (and other high seeds), who will still play a small conference champion in the first round, not a major conference team like they could in a 96 team field.
Losers
Small conferences (assuming the 4 play-in games are champions of 8 small conferences).
Rabbit ears viewers, who won't get to see the chamionship game in 2016.
ESPN
UNC, who might have made the 2011 tourney in a 96 team field.
I'd imagine it's the former, and there are actually a couple of good reasons to not do the latter. First, it would create a competitive imbalance in the middle of the field for starters. There's no way you can assume that the last 8 teams (playing for four spots) would fall neatly into a single seed line. For example, this past year, the last 4 teams in ranged from 10-12 in seed. There is no fair way to determine which 7-seed would get to have a play-in winner and which 5-seed would have to play a rested team. Yes, I know that only one 1-seed got a play-in before, but there is little competitive difference between the 16 seeds, rested or not. This won't be the case with the at large teams. The other issue is time between games.Quote:
Originally Posted by pfrduke
Second, the 16-seeds typically have their championship up to a week or more before the play-in game, plenty of time to rest, whereas the last at-large teams could be playing the weekend before, and with 4 play-in games, there will likely be no Friday guarantee. This year, that could have caused a scenario where a team like Miss. St. would have played for the SEC title on Sunday, a play-in on Tuesday, a First-round game on Thursday, and if they somehow won the last two, a second round game on Saturday. Adding in the early SEC tourney games, that's 6 games in 9 days, something the NCAA would likely try and avoid.
At the end of the day, you end up pushing the lowest 8 low major conferences into play in games, where these teams always got crushed in the first round anyway. These aren't legit mid-major teams that you just haven't heard of because of their conference affiliation, they aren't that good. Having 4 play in rounds may lessen the stigma of playing the game and legitimize wins gained in that round, at least for low-major bragging rights. I could see the play-in games turning into a sort-of basketball bowl game for low majors, now that they will all be subjected to it.
It's not a terrible idea to try and make the last 8 at large teams play in, but it needs a more refined idea on how to do it (see the link in my signature if you want to read a more refined idea on how to do just that)
Odd enough, this isn't quite correct:Quote:
Originally Posted by Neals384
See those smaller conferences, yes they'll need to win the play in game to get into the 64 team field...
BUT, and this is KEY, the money a small conference gets from a team winning a play-in game is the SAME as if they won any other game.
So the small conferences that WIN their play-in games get money as if they won the first round...which is a big deal to those conferences (its like 250K split between the members...a nice extra bit of revenue for smaller funded bball programs).
So yeah, from a fundamentalist point of view, the smallest conferences are getting jobbed. But less so than you'd think.
------------------
Of note: this does make 16 seeds probably BETTER and more likely to beat 15s, as the play-in games will probably be between the 4 would-be 16s and 4 would-be 15s, meaning a #1 seed is essentially going to be playing a 15 seed most of the time.
Can't complain about this. Hope they stay with 68 for a few years.
I think "losers" will include 2 and 3 seeds -- some years, that will be us. They'll play slightly better teams in the first round as more weaker teams get stuffed into play-in games. Thought of another way, 2's will play what are now 14's and 3's will get current 13's. I don't think 1-seeds will be affected much as they should be good enough to beat any minor conference champion that gets thrown at them. OTOH 4's are already somewhat vulnerable to lose to 13's, so matching them against 12's wouldn't change much there.
Good news:
-the conference play and conference tournaments stay relevant
-the competition remains high
-the tournament remains "elite" instead of a free-for-all party
-the NCAA get their money without completely ruining the tournament
-all games will be broadcast live on separate networks
Bad news:
-could just be a temporary fix with a 96 team expansion coming in the future
-tampering with an already pretty solid format (although this proposal is not so bad)
Question marks:
-How will the format work? Each region getting a play-in? If so, between small conference champions or at large bubble teams?
-What will it look like on the other networks like TBS, TNT, truTV?
CBS not airing the marquis game of one of their signature events on their over the air network is one more step to self-obsolescence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neals384
Going to 96 teams would have been a running leap there, like adding in all the intrigue and drama of the NIT to their NCAA National Championship coverage.
Did the NCAA and CBS retain the online internet rights for all the games?
Oh sure - all of you with your play in game for each region have a logical way of doing it, but wouldn't it be more fun to have a play-in tourney ahead of time? ACC Tournament style and to take place during the week before the first round. Monday night - each team flying in that day - 4 games in the first play-in round, a semi-final and final ... on successive days ... and the winner gets to play a Friday game versus a number one seed. ;)
Pro: Listening to Sir Charles keep Kenny in line.Quote:
Originally Posted by DallasDevil
If I had a dollar for every time I posted or said the tournament would be on espn next season, I would have had enough to fly to durham for the banquet.
That typed, I am S O happy to be wrong.
To celebrate, punch up some of these:
http://www.gusjohnsongetsbuckets.com/
:D