@gros-louis 2.4 vs 2.8 million... 17.7% bump for 2 less popular/storied programs.
Right, but total First Four viewership up 100k@gros-louis 2.4 vs 2.8 million... 17.7% bump for 2 less popular/storied programs.
@gros-louis not sure of your point. You said that Miami and SMU didn't cause a rise in viewership and they absolutely did. If their game was the most watched ever by 400K and the overall First Four viewership was only up 100K, then that's confirming what my belief is that overall interest isn't great across the board and expanding it will likely lead to less interest and ratings.
I say let you everyone in and give everyone a trophy 🏆
While I regarded God as a tyrant I thought my sin a trifle; But when I knew Him to be my Father, then I mourned that I could ever have kicked against Him. When I thought God was hard, I found it easy to sin; but when I found God so kind, so good, so overflowing with compassion, I smote upon my breast to think that I could ever have rebelled against One who loved me so, and sought my good.” C. H. Spurgeon
If there are now 12 playin games, why not play them at the same sites as 1st 2 rounds and save the extra travel?
The season is to long thing is like an hour of daylight is lost if not having adjustment for daylights saving time.
@gros-louis not sure of your point. You said that Miami and SMU didn't cause a rise in viewership and they absolutely did. If their game was the most watched ever by 400K and the overall First Four viewership was only up 100K, then that's confirming what my belief is that overall interest isn't great across the board and expanding it will likely lead to less interest and ratings.
not that it means anything, but I watched the Miami game. To me, it was an interesting game to watch, especially as they were playing in Dayton.
i did not watch any of the final four.
I watched the Miami SMU game because of Miami's near perfect record and wanted to see if they were actually any good. And I also watched the Wyoming game with a hope of program renewal that was then subsequently dashed quickly... outside of that not sure I've watched much of the play in games ever. The whole Tuesday night thing maybe ... or teams that generally aren't real good or widely known which don't garner a lot of interest... if IU were again to play in one I'd of course watch.. with some measure of disappointment and some hope mixed In. .. if we were to be in one of those games in the future I'd hope it was a low bar /floor type of entry to the tourney. The exception. Not the rule. But other than that .. can't say these play in game even remotely interests me ever and expanding the platform doesn't change it. I hate the NBA play in games. It's 8 awful teams vying for the right to get swept by 1 seeds etc. The NCAA versions aren't much different
Why stop at 76 teams? Why not 128? or 256? Or the whole D1? It would only add an extra week to the tournament.
@hoosiers94 I'm mostly in agreement here... If I had my choice, there wouldn't be any play in games. Back to just 64 teams. If you don't make it, tough, be better.
But... the toothpaste is out of the tube on it... so we have a play in "round"... I don't think adding to that round is the worst thing. And I can't see how it would possibly lessen my interest in it. And adding 8 more games to it, since it isn't really expanding the number of days or rounds, I have to think will make Monday and Tuesday quite a lot more interesting. Increases the chances, every year, that there will be "Miami (OH) like story lines". Even one or two more of those, means I'll more intently watch on Mondays and Tuesdays. And while I hope, man I hope, IU elevates itself above having to worry about these play in level games... if they don't, or if they have a down year every now and then and end up in the play in games... I'll be glad to watch them.
And another potential benefit...it will likely improve the overall competitiveness of the round of 64 games. I think that might inherently involve less mid/low major Cinderella story type games. As the new play in will weed out some of those types of teams, with matchups against solid high majors. But on the flip side of that... when a Miami (OH) type team does come around, and they beat an SMU type team in the play in... it will only intensify the hype and "Cinderella" vibes for that round of 64 matchups. But assuming we do lose a lot of mid/low majors during the play in round... it should result in better, more competitive Thursday/Friday games. Maybe less Cinderellas, maybe more buzzer beaters??
Anyway... I'm excited for the change, overall. The two sites will be interesting, initially.
One thing I would do to change it, though... And I know this would never happen because the TV Money is too big for each of the conferences... so they'd never agree to hand that money over to the NCAA... But this is what I'd do...
1. Conference championship games all end by Wednesday before Selection Sunday.
2. All conference tournament champions are exempt from play in games.
3. Thursday evening, Selection Show... Top 16 seeds announced, locations, regions, etc... rest of at larges aren't in play in games, and then remaining conference champions, listed. And then the 24, at large, play in teams, and matchups are announced.
4. Play in games played on Saturday and Sunday.
5. Sunday night, seeds 5-16 seeded, and full field is announced.
I know this isn't logistically feasible, because the revenue hit the major conferences would take by not having the bulk of their tournaments on the weekend, precludes all this. Maybe the NCAA could agree to share more of the revenue with the major conferences? I don't know. But the plan above does put some more importance on the regular season, and the conference tournaments.
@iunorth If you read through Gerdis and Hoosier 94s replies, they are consistent with my feelings: the "first four" games are not compelling to watch and folks only watch if there's an exceptional story, like Miami almost having an undefeated season, or your own team playing. You are a junkie and a "watch it all" type person. For you and your ilk, more games are better. For the general viewing public, I believe it has, and will, lessen interest. More "meh" games, will not be of interest and imo, will make it more likely that folks will lose interest overall and watch less of the real tournament. Exactly what happened with the NBA in the 80s and 90s and we still see tons of people on here who don't watch the NBA because of the "one on one" boring style of play, even though that's not been the situation for probably 10 years.
Beyond that, I like many of your other ideas and would like to see those implemented too!
Why stop at 76 teams? Why not 128? or 256? Or the whole D1? It would only add an extra week to the tournament.
I don't know if you're being facetious or not, but I actually think they should do this. Cancel conference tournaments, and put every team in, and start a week earlier.
It would be more fun, and fewer games for the best teams, who'd get a bye out of the first round and then only have to play twice in that first week instead of 3 or 4 days in a row, like they do on the conference tournaments.
@kkott Very possible. And I hadn't thought about it being different for me than most people. Was just thinking adding 8 more games just increases the likelihood that one or two more of them will provide the compelling story lines that have often helped the Dayton games. This entire thing is about money, and TV viewership... So I have to think they'll try to be very strategic about matchups, location placements, etc... to try to ensure there are mutiple compelling games at each location. Some years that might be more difficult than others. But I just have to think adding the amount of teams they are, should increase the likelihood most years of multiple compelling matchups.
We'll see?!
@iunorth We will see! But, "compelling" is a relative term. To me there's nothing compelling about two 19 win teams squaring off, unless one of them happens to be my team. And again, I think our scant amount of evidence points to this. I'm sure there have been numerous First Four games involving big name teams, and yet the highest viewership ever, by almost 20%, for a First Four game involved elite names like Miami OH and SMU. And, likely only because one of them almost went undefeated. I'm not looking it up but I can guess how many 1 win teams there have been in First Four games!
@whatthefrik I think he was, but honestly, I think I like that idea better than increasingly meaningless conference tournaments, followed by barely meaningful First Four, err 12, games.
Why stop at 76 teams? Why not 128? or 256? Or the whole D1? It would only add an extra week to the tournament.
Bob Knight advocated for 128 several times while he was still doing broadcasts.