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/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2010/announcements/20100422+cbs+turner+ncaa+rights+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! :rolleyes:

[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/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2010/announcements/20100422+cbs+turner+ncaa+rights+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!:D

[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.

[CrazieDUMB]

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.

[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.

[El_Diablo]

Recommend merging w/thread started on this topic 40 minutes ago.

[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.

[CrazieDUMB]

I apologize, totally missed the other thread. *Shame*

[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.

[SCMatt33]

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.

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.

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)

[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.

[hurleyfor3]

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.

[baby-face dawkins]

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?

[tele]

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.

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.

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?

[monkey]

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. ;)

[77devil]

Con: I will now have to listen to Kenny Smith before, at the half, and after Duke games.

Pro: Listening to Sir Charles keep Kenny in line.

[WiJoe]

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

[77devil]

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

My friends at ESPN tell me that Disney wasn't willing to write the check for the whole enchilada.

[WiJoe]

My friends at ESPN tell me that Disney wasn't willing to write the check for the whole enchilada.

For that, we should ALL be thankful.

[sagegrouse]

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.

Looks like I save 50 bucks by getting it from CBS and Turner. I was really happy, however, to have had the DirecTV Mega March stuff the last few years.

sagegrouse

[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.

[4decadedukie]

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

LOL - LOL - LOL . . . wonderful comment, Double Duke Dad!

[hurleyfor3]

By the way, is there any news on the Nit? Will it still exist? Any changes to its structure (fewer teams, finals not in ny, etc)?

[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?

[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?

[SCMatt33]

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?

I think he meant that they play in games will match-up the CURRENT 15 seeds against 16 seeds. So presumably, Duke would have had to play a team like North Texas or Robert Morris as opposed to Arkansas-PB. The current 16 seeds who will become 17 seeds are generally atrocious, often with rpi's outside the top 150. The current 15 seeds generally have rpi's around 100 or 125, meaning that unless there is a play in upset, the 1-seeds will have tougher opponents than they do now. The same will be true for 2 and 3 seeds because all of the AQ's will be dropped one seed line to make room for new at large teams, who will presumably slot in as low 12 or 13 seeds.

[brevity]

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?

You're overlooking loran16's use of "would-be." A 16-seed in next year's tournament would be a 15 seed in a past tournament.

To illustrate, let's say the 2010 NCAA Tournament had 68 teams instead of 65. Virginia Tech, Illinois, and Mississippi State (probably) would join the field as 12-seeds, bumping most of the teams below that down a seed line. This would mean that three of those 15-seeds (Robert Morris, North Texas, UCSB, Morgan State) would join Lehigh, ETSU, Vermont, Arkansas-Pine Bluff, and Winthrop in the opening round games.

Theoretically, this could mean that Robert Morris, which very nearly beat Villanova, would have been pitted against a top seed instead had they won their opening round game. That's a 1-seed playing a would-be 15-seed.

[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.