goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: michigancat on April 02, 2010, 09:25:22 AM
-
:runaway: :runaway: :runaway: :runaway: :runaway:
:bawl: :bawl: :bawl: :bawl: :bawl: :bawl:
:runaway: :runaway: :runaway: :runaway: :runaway:
-
More post season basketball. Plus, if they're going to do it, may as well do it now for the only season in prolly forever that we have a chance at getting a first round bye :dunno:
-
More post season basketball. Plus, if they're going to do it, may as well do it now for the only season in prolly forever that we have a chance at getting a first round bye :dunno:
The best argument against it is "IT'S ALREADY PERFECT!"
Which really isn't a good reason.
-
I'd love to be in the offices during some tough discussions.
Coach: But I made the NCAA tourney 3 years in a row.
AD: The entire conference made the F'ing NCAA tourney 3 years in a row.
-
I don't know a lot about the expansion stuff (not a big deal either way to me) but I bet the NIT people are shaking their fists in anger over this.
-
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=ap-ncaatournament-expansion (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=ap-ncaatournament-expansion)
-
I don't know a lot about the expansion stuff (not a big deal either way to me) but I bet the NIT people are shaking their fists in anger over this.
NCAA owns the NIT. :dunno:
-
I don't know a lot about the expansion stuff (not a big deal either way to me) but I bet the NIT people are shaking their fists in anger over this.
NCAA owns the NIT. :dunno:
Hmmmm, I change my comment to say CBI/CIT then :guyturningandrunningaway:
-
the round of 96 should have better games than the current round of 64 leading to better matchups in the '2nd round'. looking forward to more madness resulting from those better matches and even some #1s to go down in the their first game.
could UNC have played a #1 seed in the round of 64 this year if there were 96 teams? would have been awesome.
-
I think it'll be just fine. Same story lines that we have now, except that the underdogs come from BCS conferences. Really any of the arguments against it are the same ones the BCS people are using to defend their system. So there's really a lot of irony in this discussion.
-
You know somewhere Doc's fistpumping his ass off at the thought of the tournament getting bigger.
-
You suppose Nebraska could finally win a NCAA tournament game?
-
the round of 96 should have better games than the current round of 64 leading to better matchups in the '2nd round'. looking forward to more madness resulting from those better matches and even some #1s to go down in the their first game.
could UNC have played a #1 seed in the round of 64 this year if there were 96 teams? would have been awesome.
Excellent point. I liked it when haters did mock brackets, and were like, "UCONN AND UNC WOULD BE 15 AND 16 SEEDS. WHO WOULD WANT TO SEE A GAME LIKE THAT?@?!???"
-
What the eff is Lunardi gonna do? Off himself?
-
If Frank is for it....I'm for it.
-
More post season basketball. Plus, if they're going to do it, may as well do it now for the only season in prolly forever that we have a chance at getting a first round bye :dunno:
Let's pretend this year's tournament had been expanded to 96 teams. Instead of playing North Texas in the round of 64, we would have played the winner of the game between the 15 and the 18 seeds. These would probably be good teams from power conferences, and much tougher to beat than North Texas.
That said, I still prefer this in principle. As it is now, the matchups between the top four and bottom four seeds in each region are usually pretty boring because the 13-16 seeds usually get destroyed.
-
"waters down the regular season"
-
the round of 96 should have better games than the current round of 64 leading to better matchups in the '2nd round'. looking forward to more madness resulting from those better matches and even some #1s to go down in the their first game.
Totally agree. Again pretending this year's tournament was 96 teams, we might have had a decent game between 9-seed Louisville and 24-seed Arkansas-Pine Bluff (yes, they'd probably get bumped all the way down to 24) in the round of 96, instead of an inevitable Duke blowout over A-PB like we actually got. More interesting, better chance of an upset. But most of the low seeds would still get weeded out in the round of 96, making the round of 64 more competitive and worth watching.
Expanding the tournament wouldn't water down the regular season, as many insist. What does water down the tournament is giving automatic bids to weak teams from terrible conferences.
-
"waters down the regular season"
rip rpi, we hardly knew ye
-
You suppose Nebraska could finally win a NCAA tournament game?
Would a win over a #21 seed actually count?
-
You suppose Nebraska could finally win a NCAA tournament game?
Would a win over a #21 seed actually count?
They would most likely be the 21 seed (please note they have a ways to go before even being a 21 seed)
-
i don't think it's the best answer to the problem. the drunk coach from west virginia had a better solution, which was eliminate about half the D1 teams, which would result in (a) more power conference teams going to the tourney (which is really the "complaint") and (b) make the regular season more enjoyable/better because you'd have a limited pool of teams to play.
-
who cares? so there's a bunch of play in games.
-
This is all about SLTH's looking to extend their $Million careers by a couple of years. The Big 12 would have eliminated 2-3 teams out of 12 during a 16 game regular season. What a complete crock of crap. It's also about University Presidents wanting to not have to fire guys as often, and hoping to save some money that way.
-
This is all about SLTH's looking to extend their $Million careers by a couple of years. The Big 12 would have eliminated 2-3 teams out of 12 during a 16 game regular season. What a complete crock of crap. It's also about University Presidents wanting to not have to fire guys as often, and hoping to save some money that way.
Doesn't this help us? I prefer having McNeck and Doc to kick around for another couple of years (known commodity thing) rather than take our chances that ISU or Nebrasketball actually makes a decent hire.
-
Don't really care I guess. If I had to vote I would keep it where it is. My biggest prob is the reasons for expanding it go against what they say about the BCS. Wish they would just come out and say, "we don't care what you think, we are after the most cash".
-
Don't really care I guess. If I had to vote I would keep it where it is. My biggest prob is the reasons for expanding it go against what they say about the BCS. Wish they would just come out and say, "we don't care what you think, we are after the most cash".
y do u care about their reasoning. you should care whether or not it makes college basketball better. fwiw tia nfm
-
last few weeks of regular season would become a joke.
-
i don't think it's the best answer to the problem. the drunk coach from west virginia had a better solution, which was eliminate about half the D1 teams, which would result in (a) more power conference teams going to the tourney (which is really the "complaint") and (b) make the regular season more enjoyable/better because you'd have a limited pool of teams to play.
Yes, this is really a big part of the problem (Kietz has been advocating this as well).
But small schools are still going to continue with the process of going D1 and joining crappy low-major leagues. I'm sure getting their piece of the pie from the crappy league for their winner getting a bid as a 15/16 seed is still a lot more $$s than whatever they'd get for making the D2 tournament. And if the NCAA gives both regular season champs AND conference tournament champs bids with expansion, that is only going to get worse, not better.
And overall I'm fine with the change, I don't think it will be terrible at all. I do hope most of the play-in games are match-ups between mid majors and BCS leagues. For example from this year; it would be less appealing to do a match-up between Arizona and North Carolina both having subpar years, but more interesting to do Wichita State against Arizona. IMO most of those first 32 games should be those type of match-ups for the chance to play against one of the top 32 teams that get byes.
-
Do not like. I'm in favor of calling crappy tiny schools what they are (D1AA) and telling them to go hold their own damn tournament. More upsets would only be better the first few rounds. After that, you're all "WTF Siena vs Oakland? I'm not watching that garbage."
-
Move the tourney to 96 teams, and you make it that much harder for a Butler-type scenario in the future...
2 minutes ago via web
:confused:
-
Move the tourney to 96 teams, and you make it that much harder for a Butler-type scenario in the future...
2 minutes ago via web
:confused:
playing more games in the same amount of time = less chance of upsets over more talented teams :dunno:
-
Move the tourney to 96 teams, and you make it that much harder for a Butler-type scenario in the future...
2 minutes ago via web
:confused:
playing more games in the same amount of time = less chance of upsets over more talented teams :dunno:
butler would get a bye just like any other top 8 seed. they might face tougher competition in the round of 64 but so would all top 8 seeds. :dunno:
-
butler would get a bye just like any other top 8 seed. they might face tougher competition in the round of 64 but so would all top 8 seeds. :dunno:
Exactly. Nothing would've changed about Butler's possible run. This may be the poorest anti-expansion talking point I've seen.
-
Seems silly. It's not broke, why fix it?
-
Seems silly. It's not broke, why fix it?
Simple. The NCAA is worried about losing $$$$$.
The other talking points (coach's jobs, more teams get the opportunity, etc.) are just fillers.
-
hoping expansion also means ESPN gets the tourney. would mean no more weather interruptions during biggest game of year.
"it's not broke don't fix it". those are usually the last words of a current industry leader getting ready to be burned. you should always look to be improving your product even if it's 'not broke'. 96 teams will give us better games and more games.
-
they'll be opening up a new can of worms....the "student" part of "student-athlete."
That wouldn't really matter, except for penalties being imposed on teams because of students being retards...and adding more games means that they'll go whole weeks now without being in class. That's going to come back to bite a lot of teams.
this seems like a very similar thing to football having too many bowl games. A lot of crap teams that have no business playing with be playing each other, making for horrible games to watch/nobody cares about.
-
hoping expansion also means ESPN gets the tourney. would mean no more weather interruptions during biggest game of year.
"it's not broke don't fix it". those are usually the last words of a current industry leader getting ready to be burned. you should always look to be improving your product even if it's 'not broke'. 96 teams will give us better games and more games.
really? so you think a whole day of teams under .500 playing each other will be "better games?"
-
hoping expansion also means ESPN gets the tourney. would mean no more weather interruptions during biggest game of year.
"it's not broke don't fix it". those are usually the last words of a current industry leader getting ready to be burned. you should always look to be improving your product even if it's 'not broke'. 96 teams will give us better games and more games.
really? so you think a whole day of teams under .500 playing each other will be "better games?"
no. why would that happen?
-
Would much rather have a BCS system for basketball as well. Would have loved to see KU and Kentucky play last night instead of that garbage. Also, you know they would have put us vs. WVU in a BCS game. That would have been fun.
-
Its not terrible. You wouldn't have to watch the play-in game round on the opening Thurs-Fri, but most people still would. Then you get your "regular" first round games on Sat-Sun, and it keeps moving on.
I've pretty much conceded that this will happen, so might as well move on and enjoy it. I'm guessing the first 32 games will be shown on the ESPN family of networks, then CBS will take over with the rest.
I also kind of like the incentive of a bye for being one of the top 32 teams.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsports.cbsimg.net%2Fimages%2Fcollegebasketball%2F96teambracket2.gif&hash=a406d9959f4e0dd8f31cfce13364245c6e97091b)
-
Its not terrible. You wouldn't have to watch the play-in game round on the opening Thurs-Fri, but most people still would. Then you get your "regular" first round games on Sat-Sun, and it keeps moving on.
I've pretty much conceded that this will happen, so might as well move on and enjoy it. I'm guessing the first 32 games will be shown on the ESPN family of networks, then CBS will take over with the rest.
I also kind of like the incentive of a bye for being one of the top 32 teams.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsports.cbsimg.net%2Fimages%2Fcollegebasketball%2F96teambracket2.gif&hash=a406d9959f4e0dd8f31cfce13364245c6e97091b)
wonder if there will be the possibility of any reseeding after 'play-in' games
-
I also kind of like the incentive of a bye for being one of the top 32 teams.
This is a much underused talking point. Much of the drama on Selection Sunday will be derived from who gets 8 seeds. I can see that being the new "made the tournament" criteria for coaches, which actually raises the bar.
-
I also kind of like the incentive of a bye for being one of the top 32 teams.
Tell that to Frank :ohno: :ohno:
-
It'll either all be on CBS or all on ESPN, they won't "share" the tourney. And CBS holds all the cards. The ESPN thing is just a dream.
-
It'll either all be on CBS or all on ESPN, they won't "share" the tourney. And CBS holds all the cards. The ESPN thing is just a dream.
ESPN would muck it all up anyway. CBS does a good job of switching between games as the action dictates (well, maybe not "good", but better than any other network does for any other sport). Guarantee you ESPN would make us sit through a Duke 95-62 snoozefest while a Xavier-K-State type game is going on elsewhere. It's what they do, because they don't give a crap about what their audience wants.
-
It'll either all be on CBS or all on ESPN, they won't "share" the tourney. And CBS holds all the cards. The ESPN thing is just a dream.
Good point, all or nothing for any network is probably true. But I could see ESPN making a big push for it and at least putting up a competitive bid.
But sitting at home I can watch one game on ESPN. Another on ESPN2. And another on ESPNU. And if a 4th is on, it will be on ESPN Classic. And all games available online on ESPN3.com.
Never have to worry about which region my CBS channel is in again for which gave I'll get on TV.
-
How much money does ESPN make on the NIT opening rounds? Because that’s what they’d be adding to the Tourney. Also makes the conference tournament that much more irrelevant. Tech doesn’t care about winning it because they’re going to be part of the field of 96 anyway and they don’t really have a legitimate chance to get a top 32 seed. All the expansion does is add more mid majors, which I don’t think is a good thing at all from a competitive stand point. Why would CBS want to pay more for a product that is more likely to include teams that no one really wants to watch?
-
I like that this is happening. Because, now we are basically a tourny lock for 2012 and a first round bye lock for 2011 :gocho:
-
Why would CBS want to pay more for a product that is more likely to include teams that no one really wants to watch?
The NCAA isn't really asking for more. They are asking for the same amount which CBS way overbid last time. The only way to get the same amount now is by adding more games. This is the only reason expansion is a topic, b/c the only way to match the last bid is to add games.
-
They say it will be extremely profitable for CBS.
-
Somewhere Wooly is wishing this would have happened in 2005
-
Why would CBS want to pay more for a product that is more likely to include teams that no one really wants to watch?
The NCAA isn't really asking for more. They are asking for the same amount which CBS way overbid last time. The only way to get the same amount now is by adding more games. This is the only reason expansion is a topic, b/c the only way to match the last bid is to add games.
Not sure the ratings (or attendance) of of a 16/17 match up between Wright State and Wichita State in Anaheim. Not that the opening rounds are well attended anyway. That's why I compared it to the opening round of the NIT. CBS doesn't make money on the deal anyway. Adding more, crappy games only decreases their bottom line.
-
CBS doesn't make money on the deal anyway. Adding more, crappy games only decreases their bottom line.
This is false according to people who would know.
-
CBS doesn't make money on the deal anyway. Adding more, crappy games only decreases their bottom line.
This is false according to people who would know.
...like?
-
CBS doesn't make money on the deal anyway. Adding more, crappy games only decreases their bottom line.
This is false according to people who would know.
...like?
Dudes I heard talking on the radio. Do you think that CBS wants this because they think it's a loser?
-
CBS doesn't make money on the deal anyway. Adding more, crappy games only decreases their bottom line.
This is false according to people who would know.
...like?
Dudes I heard talking on the radio. Do you think that CBS wants this because they think it's a loser?
The "no one wants to watch 96 teams" and "it's just a money grab" are contradicting talking points. But I'm sure most media hacks will use both.
-
Bilas and Forde with good points on expansion. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/news/story?id=5047800
And clearly the teams/conferences are going to support this b/c all of them have their piece of the pie at stake here. Again, for all parties involved (NCAA, CBS, conferences, teams) this is about the money first and foremost, all the other talking points are secondary.
-
I want them to get rid of the tournament all together and go to a bowl system. Just assign teams to play each other, one time.
-
Bilas and Forde with good points on expansion. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/news/story?id=5047800
And clearly the teams/conferences are going to support this b/c all of them have their piece of the pie at stake here. Again, for all parties involved (NCAA, CBS, conferences, teams) this is about the money first and foremost, all the other talking points are secondary.
Yep. If it wasn't, they'd do the same thing for the women's tournament.
-
I want them to get rid of the tournament all together and go to a bowl system. Just assign teams to play each other, one time.
i'd rather just see the NCAA scrap the rulebook and institute a CALVINBALL regimen...i.e. you make up the rules as you go.
-
CBS doesn't make money on the deal anyway. Adding more, crappy games only decreases their bottom line.
This is false according to people who would know.
...like?
Dudes I heard talking on the radio. Do you think that CBS wants this because they think it's a loser?
The "no one wants to watch 96 teams" and "it's just a money grab" are contradicting talking points. But I'm sure most media hacks will use both.
Maybe it's a "long tail" thing? 80% of standard NCAA fans don't want to watch them, but by letting in more teams, you guarantee a solid regional audience from whatever schools are in those games, and bringing in more fans total. In other words, you get people to watch the NIT by making it part of the NCAA.
Srsly, who's going to watch eight 15/18 and 16/17 matchups? Pretty much only the fans of those schools, and maybe the fans of the 1/2 seeds waiting to play them. But that's still adding more fanbases who are gonna watch games.
Plus, CBS was losing money on this, and the NCAA knew it needed to either repackage it or cut its asking price when the current contract was up.
-
CBS doesn't make money on the deal anyway. Adding more, crappy games only decreases their bottom line.
This is false according to people who would know.
...like?
Dudes I heard talking on the radio. Do you think that CBS wants this because they think it's a loser?
The "no one wants to watch 96 teams" and "it's just a money grab" are contradicting talking points. But I'm sure most media hacks will use both.
Maybe it's a "long tail" thing? 80% of standard NCAA fans don't want to watch them, but by letting in more teams, you guarantee a solid regional audience from whatever schools are in those games, and bringing in more fans total. In other words, you get people to watch the NIT by making it part of the NCAA.
Srsly, who's going to watch eight 15/18 and 16/17 matchups? Pretty much only the fans of those schools, and maybe the fans of the 1/2 seeds waiting to play them. But that's still adding more fanbases who are gonna watch games.
Plus, CBS was losing money on this, and the NCAA knew it needed to either repackage it or cut its asking price when the current contract was up.
I would watch them.
-
I would watch them.
Yes! I'll still be all over those Thurs/Fri games. Nothing wrong with watching Washington vs Wichita State type games.
-
I would watch them.
Yes! I'll still be all over those Thurs/Fri games. Nothing wrong with watching Washington vs Wichita State type games.
I thought the NIT games were really cool, even this year. Pope!
:dunno:
-
I would watch them.
Yes! I'll still be all over those Thurs/Fri games. Nothing wrong with watching Washington vs Wichita State type games.
I thought the NIT games were really cool, even this year. Pope!
:dunno:
No doubt. The NIT had lots of really good basketball games with pretty darn good teams.
-
Good point, all or nothing for any network is probably true. But I could see ESPN making a big push for it and at least putting up a competitive bid.
But sitting at home I can watch one game on ESPN. Another on ESPN2. And another on ESPNU. And if a 4th is on, it will be on ESPN Classic. And all games available online on ESPN3.com.
Never have to worry about which region my CBS channel is in again for which gave I'll get on TV.
This is what they could do and what they should do, but I'm not sure they would do it. Remember, this is the same group of people who think 24-hour Tim Tebow coverage is a good thing, whereas 99 percent of the country wants to murder him now just to be rid of him.
-
Somewhere Wooly is wishing this would have happened in 2005
why? he would have been fired for not making the 96 team tourney
-
I would watch them.
Yes! I'll still be all over those Thurs/Fri games. Nothing wrong with watching Washington vs Wichita State type games.
can't wait :driving:
-
I would watch them.
Yes! I'll still be all over those Thurs/Fri games. Nothing wrong with watching Washington vs Wichita State type games.
can't wait :driving:
Plus, imagine being able to make fun of fellow Big 12s that have to play the first day.
"Hey MIZZU losers, hope you enjoy playing Stony Brook today! LOLLERZ!"
NCAA Thurs/Fri would become a more elite form of Big 12 Wed.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
-
Good point, all or nothing for any network is probably true. But I could see ESPN making a big push for it and at least putting up a competitive bid.
But sitting at home I can watch one game on ESPN. Another on ESPN2. And another on ESPNU. And if a 4th is on, it will be on ESPN Classic. And all games available online on ESPN3.com.
Never have to worry about which region my CBS channel is in again for which gave I'll get on TV.
This is what they could do and what they should do, but I'm not sure they would do it. Remember, this is the same group of people who think 24-hour Tim Tebow coverage is a good thing, whereas 99 percent of the country wants to murder him now just to be rid of him.
They already offer this as a pay-per-view feature on DirecTV. Money-wise, it may not make sense to give it away for free. :dunno:
-
I would watch them.
Yes! I'll still be all over those Thurs/Fri games. Nothing wrong with watching Washington vs Wichita State type games.
can't wait :driving:
Plus, imagine being able to make fun of fellow Big 12s that have to play the first day.
"Hey MIZZU losers, hope you enjoy playing Stony Brook today! LOLLERZ!"
NCAA Thurs/Fri would become a more elite form of Big 12 Wed.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
fatty will be there at the regional with his dippin' dots, smug as hell on Thursday afternoon.
-
All the expansion does is add more mid majors, which I don’t think is a good thing at all from a competitive stand point. Why would CBS want to pay more for a product that is more likely to include teams that no one really wants to watch?
I think basically they're folding the NIT into the NCAA tourney. If you look at this year's NIT, about half the teams were from power conference schools. Plenty of folks will want to watch those teams play. It's also good from a competitive standpoint because lots of those weak automatic bid teams will be gone by the round of 64.
-
Plus, imagine being able to make fun of fellow Big 12s that have to play the first day.
"Hey MIZZU losers, hope you enjoy playing Stony Brook today! LOLLERZ!"
NCAA Thurs/Fri would become a more elite form of Big 12 Wed.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
combofan-style hand sign for this?
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsports.cbsimg.net%2Fimages%2Fvisual%2F10-choops96team1.jpg&hash=55de753ce9feb0078789ed1c1c56d89996fa70c4)
OMG! THE HORROR!
:dunno: