NCAA signs 14-year deal with CBS/Turner; 68 team tourney next year

[arydolphin]

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.

[DoubleDuke Dad]

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!

[roywhite]

68 teams---each region gets a play-in game, I guess?

Glad to see the extended coverage for early round games

[pfrduke]

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.

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.

[DoubleDuke Dad]

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!

[KyDevilinIL]

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.

[DallasDevil]

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.

[Bluedog]

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.

[Neals384]

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.

[loran16]

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.

Odd enough, this isn't quite correct:

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.

[Neals384]

Odd enough, this isn't quite correct:

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.

Didn't know that. Cool.

[Wander]

This is idiotic and pointless. But it's far better than the 96 team garbage, and hopefully it'll shut up all those punk coaches about expansion for a while.

[barjwr]

I appreciate the thoughtful arguments for the low-majors to be the ones in the play-in--er, "opening round" games rather than the last 8 at-large teams, but I respectfully disagree. These low-major conference champions are just that: champions. They have actually accomplished something by winning a conference tournament, and I think as such they deserve to be a part of the glitz and glamour of Thursday or Friday without having to play on Tuesday. There's something special about playing during that cornucopia of hoops the first weekend--especially if you're a 16-seed who manages to keep it close and win the support of the crowd.

I don't have any pity for a middling power-6 conference team to have to play for the right to be a 13 or 12 seed (typically the lowest seeded at-large teams) on Tuesday, then play again on Friday, even if they get in because of a good conference tournament run. If they had been better during the regular season, then they would get the rest they deserve. Besides, as has already been mentioned, such games would likely have better viewership, right? How many people other than die hard fans watch the Dayton game each year as it currently exists?

(Incidentally, if the opening round winners are going to be 16-seeds, then all the 1-seeds will have to play on Friday, no?)

Just my take.

[Acymetric]

I appreciate the thoughtful arguments for the low-majors to be the ones in the play-in--er, "opening round" games rather than the last 8 at-large teams, but I respectfully disagree. These low-major conference champions are just that: champions. They have actually accomplished something by winning a conference tournament, and I think as such they deserve to be a part of the glitz and glamour of Thursday or Friday without having to play on Tuesday. There's something special about playing during that cornucopia of hoops the first weekend--especially if you're a 16-seed who manages to keep it close and win the support of the crowd.

I don't have any pity for a middling power-6 conference team to have to play for the right to be a 13 or 12 seed (typically the lowest seeded at-large teams) on Tuesday, then play again on Friday, even if they get in because of a good conference tournament run. If they had been better during the regular season, then they would get the rest they deserve. Besides, as has already been mentioned, such games would likely have better viewership, right? How many people other than die hard fans watch the Dayton game each year as it currently exists?

(Incidentally, if the opening round winners are going to be 16-seeds, then all the 1-seeds will have to play on Friday, no?)

Just my take.

Its not about pity for the power conference teams. Its that the two teams playing each might not both be 13 seeds. What if one of the last teams in is say...an 11, and the other is a 14. Some high seed is going to get jobbed by having to play the tougher team when they should have been matched against a 14. Not sure I explained that as well as I would've liked, but do you see the problem?

[barjwr]

Its not about pity for the power conference teams. Its that the two teams playing each might not both be 13 seeds. What if one of the last teams in is say...an 11, and the other is a 14. Some high seed is going to get jobbed by having to play the tougher team when they should have been matched against a 14. Not sure I explained that as well as I would've liked, but do you see the problem?

I see a theoretical problem, but I can't remember an NCAA field in the last 20 years that has had as big a gap between the last few at-large teams as 11 and 14 (I think this year there were two 12s, an 11, and a 10). As it stands now, there are harrumphs about who should have been a better/worse seed by a line or two (see: Cornell, Temple) that come up because of the conference affiliation issues and geography. Besides, using the S-curve that they use to determine which teams are most deserving, you can seed the opening round games to some degree to minimize the disparity.

Instead, this approach (with the lowest 8 RPI teams in the 4 opening round games), may also mean that a 1 seed gets jobbed at some point because it has to play a team that should have been a 14 or 15 seed, and the point of seedings is to protect the highest seeded teams as much as possible--otherwise why all the fuss about getting a 1-seed? In the grand scheme of things, I would think a 1 getting screwed is more important to avoid than a 5 or a 6.

[cspan37421]

I know the reason for what I see as stupid, stupid, stupid. It's money, it's cross-subsidies of nonrevenue sports, etc. For me, the NCAA is killing the goose that lays the golden egg. The regular season should mean something, being selected for the tournament should represent a significant accomplishment, not a 16-14 record built largely on the back of a weak out of conference schedule.

Couple this with the rumors of massive conference re-alignment, I would love for Duke and other like-minded private and public schools (read: UVA, UNC, ND, Vandy, Wake, etc) to seize the initiative and create their own conference or association, to their own liking. I don't pretend to know what it should look like, but it seems that they've largely been taken for a ride. I'd like to see them in the driver's seat for a change.

[Hoosier-Devil]

(Incidentally, if the opening round winners are going to be 16-seeds, then all the 1-seeds will have to play on Friday, no?)

This might be the determining factor. The play-in/opening games can't be moved to Monday, since the Selection Show is on Sunday and there would not be enough time to arrange travel, scouting, and practice.

However, what if each Tuesday play-in/opening game is held at the site of the regular first round games? That means no additional travel for the Tuesday winners, and at least some time for scouting (Tuesday night/Wednesday morning) and practice (Wednesday). Two Tuesday winners could play Thursday, and two Tuesday winners could play Friday.

[hurleyfor3]

This might be the determining factor. The play-in/opening games can't be moved to Monday, since the Selection Show is on Sunday and there would not be enough time to arrange travel, scouting, and practice.

However, what if each Tuesday play-in/opening game is held at the site of the regular first round games? That means no additional travel for the Tuesday winners, and at least some time for scouting (Tuesday night/Wednesday morning) and practice (Wednesday). Two Tuesday winners could play Thursday, and two Tuesday winners could play Friday.

Another alternative: announce the play-in games several days before the rest of the field. Their tournaments end early and there's not a whole lot of suspense involved, so it would be an easy move. Think a bit more... why not have the play-in teams play on Selection Sunday? They'd miss less class then, and the 1 seeds would know who they're playing right around when the brackets come out.

[SCMatt33]

This might be the determining factor. The play-in/opening games can't be moved to Monday, since the Selection Show is on Sunday and there would not be enough time to arrange travel, scouting, and practice.

However, what if each Tuesday play-in/opening game is held at the site of the regular first round games? That means no additional travel for the Tuesday winners, and at least some time for scouting (Tuesday night/Wednesday morning) and practice (Wednesday). Two Tuesday winners could play Thursday, and two Tuesday winners could play Friday.

I think this is the most likely situation. The only drawback is that there would be no way to know in advance which sites would need to prepare for one (or possibly even two) play in games, and that could be a logistical problem for ticket sales and booking venues, especially when the dates and sites for these games are determined years in advance.

[Jarhead]

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.

Loran16, please explain your logic on this. It seems to me that the the play in game for each region will match the presumably 16th seed will match the 17th seed. All seeded teams, 15 and above will in effect, have a bye. The 15th seed will still play the 2 seed in its first round game. Saying it another way, the two play in teams are competing for the right to play the 1 seed in the first round. That's very daunting, I would say. Anybody see it a different way?