@iunorth I agree for many on here, IU's decline influences the tournament being less interesting to this group. I don't agree that expanding to 76 teams will not dilute interest. I think Dayton has really adopted the first four games and they have their own local interest that drives ticket sales there. Googling some of the attendance and viewership, it said First 4 TV ratings were much higher this year led by the Miami v SMU game. I'd guess that had more to do with the interest from those specific fanbases than an uptick in interest overall. The general bball public was more interested in Miami because of the undefeated streak. I think dumping in 16 more midling teams will lower interest overall and I think that will drag down ratings. I do exactly what someone suggested: don't watch until it's down to the 64 team field, but I think adding in a bunch of mid tier teams that really have no shot of winning the tourney or likely even advancing to a F4 will lower overall interest.
First four programs over the past several years:
- UNC
- Texas
- Xavier
- Virginia
- Pitt
- Mississippi St
- Colorado
- Indiana
- Notre Dame
No chance Miami and SMU fan bases caused a jump in interest compared to most of those programs.
@hoosier-clarion Not that it means much but D1 hoops is up to 360 plus teams. An insane amount of schools
Here's my baseline. The whole non-conference and conference season is a teams playin. Then a do ever is needed. I've never watched a playin and don't intend too.
@hoosier-clarion You didn't watch IU/Wyoming a few years ago? I don't believe you if your answer is no. That's a weird level of indignance, in my opinion.
I don't know about you, but I found the IU/Wyoming game rather depressing. Not exciting.@hoosier-clarion You didn't watch IU/Wyoming a few years ago? I don't believe you if your answer is no. That's a weird level of indignance, in my opinion.
So I don't see any reason to tout it as some beacon of how great having 76 teams will be.
But if they put more mid-major or low-DI teams who are at the top of their conferences against each other, without more average power conference teams, OK then.
@kkott I don't think you're right on this. But obviously no one knows yet how it will all play out. I personally am excited to watch this years play in structure. I'm sure Dayton will be excited to get 4 more teams in to town, assuming they remain as one of the sites. And I wonder where the other site will be? Guessing maybe further west a little bit, to help mitigate some of the travel concerns?? Wichita State or Creighton might support something like this really well, from an overall community standpoint.
One thing that I suspect this setup will provide, is a pretty good case study for middling P5 team vs. good mid major team. If you look at this past years tournament. And its likely the same in most tournaments, the 11-13 seeds are made up of a lot of mid major programs. Pitting them against teams like Indiana in the play in games, will garner quite a lot of interest initially. And if a team like High Point, or Akron, beats that Indiana like team, it only amplifies their ensuing matchup against the 4-6 seed they'll face. If they lose, then Indiana versus Tennessee - like matchups, while not having the same Cinderella feel, will have quite a lot more invested fan interest.
I get the sentiment... but when you start to break down what is actually likely to happen... I feel pretty strongly this is going to increase the overall interest in both the play in games, AND the first round games.
And getting back to my main point... all the purists on here saying they won't or don't watch the play in games... I challenge any of you to honestly say if IU is in them, or if IU is awaiting the winner of one of them, that you won't watch at least that particular game. I suspect you will.
The biggest downside, that I see, is it waters down the conference regular season, and lessens the importance of major conference tournaments. Indiana, losing out how they did this year, likely would have still made the NCAA tournament. They're a pretty good example of what I don't like about this new setup. But I would have happily watched their play in game. And it would have made the NCAA tournament quite a lot more interesting, especially if they had won their play in matchup.
*** maybe they could also put a rule in that if you win your conference tournament, you won't have to participate in the play in games? So all those games will be played between at large candidates, in the 8-12 seed range?
@iunorth - A summary:
Posters: "I feel XXXX YYYY ZZZZ"
IUNorth: "Well I don't believe you. You don't feel that way. I feel XXXX YYY ZZZ . "
Well, because on here people double, triple, quadruple down on their takes just so as to not back off and admit they said something stupid, dumb or out of emotion.@iunorth - A summary:
Posters: "I feel XXXX YYYY ZZZZ"
IUNorth: "Well I don't believe you. You don't feel that way. I feel XXXX YYY ZZZ . "
@openwheel Pretty much. "Its ruining college basketball." Viewership and overall interest in March seems to disagree with that. "Adding 8 teams will make for more boring matchups." The likely result will be including more name brand like programs, like Indiana, to these early round matchups. Merit or not, that as a whole is more interesting than what it has been in recent years.
I AGREE that I would prefer to go back to 64 teams, no play ins. But that's not happening. And we're talking about the impacts of expanding the play in games... the realities of what may or may not happen as a result of this current move. There were quite a lot of similar comments when the Dayton games first came in to existence. The reality is they've been a smashing success. Its very possible that adding a 2nd site, and bringing more high major fanbases in to the mix every year, will make this next move a smashing success.
It won't feel great versus 1992 nostalgia, but I suspect it'll still be successful despite that. And to the main point I'm using to argue most of this... if IU is involved in those games, or directly impacted by them... 99% of us pearl clutchers, will be intently watching, and secretly excited to do it.
@gros-louis You're right: there is no chance; Miami/SMU 100% did cause a jump in viewership and was the most watched First Four game ever. What that says to me, is there are a lot of people out there like me who don't give a crap about First Four games not involving my team, so Miami's story of a nearly perfect season and then there seeding generated a good amount of interest from "regular fans" (doubt SMU bball moved the needle much). So, you can guess what that will do to those peoples interest level expanding it now to more teams, who don't have a nearly perfect season going.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/first-four-brings-in-record-setting-viewership/ar-AA1Z5SRM
100k viewers difference. 1%@gros-louis You're right: there is no chance; Miami/SMU 100% did cause a jump in viewership and was the most watched First Four game ever. What that says to me, is there are a lot of people out there like me who don't give a crap about First Four games not involving my team, so Miami's story of a nearly perfect season and then there seeding generated a good amount of interest from "regular fans" (doubt SMU bball moved the needle much). So, you can guess what that will do to those peoples interest level expanding it now to more teams, who don't have a nearly perfect season going.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/first-four-brings-in-record-setting-viewership/ar-AA1Z5SRM
This is great news for IU; they can actually make the tourney now. If the NCAA can somehow make it easier for IU to beat NW, we're in business.
What is sad about your post is that it is true! Damn.
Can't believe where the IU program is now.
@iunorth I agree that the fans of any individual team will watch a First Four (dozen) game more intently, but I think that will be countered by a lessening of interest among all other college bball fans. I think your suggestions for alternate sites being other mid sized cities like Wichita or Omaha is a good one, given the success with Dayton. If you look at the link I provided, the most watched First Four game ever was Miami vs SMU. Why? Because Miami had an extremely rare nearly undefeated season and the interest from that outweighed as gros-louis points out, the interest from far larger and more storied programs who had made it in the past, and who's fans undoubtedly were watching. The prospect of a bunch more 19 win teams I don't think will move the needle much and will lessen interest, not increase it. But, just my best guess. I know I won't be watching unless IU is in a game and that itself will be disappointing.