Offseason

[HuskerFever]

33 minutes ago, 49r said:

No casual viewers complain that those post seasons are watered down.

 

I've argued this point before, especially for the NBA and MLS.

 

But I do think the difference is that the NBA has series which best determines the better team to advance anyway. MLS used to have the home/away system but abandoned that. To me if half the league gets in, qualifying means very little from a regular season perspective.

[49r]

20 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

I've argued this point before, especially for the NBA and MLS.

 

But I do think the difference is that the NBA has series which best determines the better team to advance anyway. MLS used to have the home/away system but abandoned that. To me if half the league gets in, qualifying means very little from a regular season perspective.

 

Counterpoint is that even Sporting KC, as horrible as the first half of their season was, still had a shot at the playoffs in the last month of the season.  Believe me, I was pretty interested in the second half of the regular season.  Didn't water anything down at all.

[Huskerpapa]

45 minutes ago, 49r said:

 

Counterpoint is that even Sporting KC, as horrible as the first half of their season was, still had a shot at the playoffs in the last month of the season.  Believe me, I was pretty interested in the second half of the regular season.  Didn't water anything down at all.

But doesn't Sporting KC play in the Big 12?

[HuskerFever]

3 hours ago, Huskerpapa said:

4 hours ago, 49r said:

 

Counterpoint is that even Sporting KC, as horrible as the first half of their season was, still had a shot at the playoffs in the last month of the season.  Believe me, I was pretty interested in the second half of the regular season.  Didn't water anything down at all.

Expand  

But doesn't Sporting KC play in the Big 12?

 

AFC West

[hskr4life]

Since we're throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks... let's throw some!

 

32 Four Team Pods.  These pods would be hosted by highest seeded team in pod and would play a Friday, Saturday, Sunday set of games the weekend after selection Sunday.  Each team plays every team in their pod over the course of the three days (1 game/day). 

 

Top 2 teams in each pod advance to the actual field of 64 and the field is reseeded after the Sunday pod games 1-64.

 

The field of 64 games would then run on the same schedule (Th-Su) just a week later than usual.

Edited October 19, 2022 by hskr4life

[aphilso1]

Two conflicting objectives:

1. Create chaos in early rounds (since the "Madness" is what makes casual fans turn their TVs on) and

2. Reward the best teams with a favorable shot at a national title.

 

Current format skews heavily towards the first objective.  The expansion from 64 to 68 slides a couple extra quality teams in around the 11-seed line while reducing a couple losers from the 16-seed line (which subtly strengthens Seeds 12-15 in the process).  And as we're all aware, single elimination inherently increases upsets.

 

If we want to BOTH have first weekend chaos AND consistently have a Final Four comprised of great teams (as opposed to teams that got hot in late March/early April), then re-seeding after the first two rounds makes a lot of sense.  That keeps the early round chaos, but eliminates those quirky 8-seed vs 12-seed Sweet 16 matchups that no one watches.  Because let's face it.  David vs Goliath in early rounds is great, but David vs Even-Smaller-David in mid-rounds is awful entertainment value.  So we should re-seed those Davids to put more Goliaths in their paths for the Sweet 16 and Elite 8, which simultaneously rewards the top seeds for having a great season. 

 

An expansion to 128 would look like more "chaos" on paper, as doubling the number of games should also roughly double the number of upsets.  But a 24-seed SEC team beating a 9-seed B1G team just isn't as entertaining as an AQ 12-seed beating a ranked 5-seed from a power conference.  Doubling the field will not double the number of small conference champions, so what we will get is a ton more .500 major conference teams squaring off against each other.  That is great for fanbases like us, as the Huskers are exactly the sort of team that would most benefit from a doubled field.  But it's not actually great for casual fans unless they find away to double the number of Davidsons, Hamptons, UMBCs, and Florida Gulf Coasts in the field.  And even if you do double the number of small conference schools, are they really going to be good enough to challenge the better teams?  A lot of those conferences only have a single team with a pulse, and seeing that one team against a blue blood is what makes the early rounds entertaining.  Expanding to 128 also gives the best teams one extra game to stub their toe, which waters down the Final Four even further.

 

TL;DR -- Re-seeding before the Sweet 16 is the best way to improve the Tournament, since it keeps early round chaos while also rewarding the best teams with weaker opponents in the second weekend.  Expanding to 128 is not as obvious of a choice as it seems, since it will water down the Final Four further while not actually creating additional iconic opening round moments.

[OmahaHusker]

9 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

Two conflicting objectives:

1. Create chaos in early rounds (since the "Madness" is what makes casual fans turn their TVs on) and

2. Reward the best teams with a favorable shot at a national title.

 

Current format skews heavily towards the first objective.  The expansion from 64 to 68 slides a couple extra quality teams in around the 11-seed line while reducing a couple losers from the 16-seed line (which subtly strengthens Seeds 12-15 in the process).  And as we're all aware, single elimination inherently increases upsets.

 

If we want to BOTH have first weekend chaos AND consistently have a Final Four comprised of great teams (as opposed to teams that got hot in late March/early April), then re-seeding after the first two rounds makes a lot of sense.  That keeps the early round chaos, but eliminates those quirky 8-seed vs 12-seed Sweet 16 matchups that no one watches.  Because let's face it.  David vs Goliath in early rounds is great, but David vs Even-Smaller-David in mid-rounds is awful entertainment value.  So we should re-seed those Davids to put more Goliaths in their paths for the Sweet 16 and Elite 8, which simultaneously rewards the top seeds for having a great season. 

 

An expansion to 128 would look like more "chaos" on paper, as doubling the number of games should also roughly double the number of upsets.  But a 24-seed SEC team beating a 9-seed B1G team just isn't as entertaining as an AQ 12-seed beating a ranked 5-seed from a power conference.  Doubling the field will not double the number of small conference champions, so what we will get is a ton more .500 major conference teams squaring off against each other.  That is great for fanbases like us, as the Huskers are exactly the sort of team that would most benefit from a doubled field.  But it's not actually great for casual fans unless they find away to double the number of Davidsons, Hamptons, UMBCs, and Florida Gulf Coasts in the field.  And even if you do double the number of small conference schools, are they really going to be good enough to challenge the better teams?  A lot of those conferences only have a single team with a pulse, and seeing that one team against a blue blood is what makes the early rounds entertaining.  Expanding to 128 also gives the best teams one extra game to stub their toe, which waters down the Final Four even further.

 

TL;DR -- Re-seeding before the Sweet 16 is the best way to improve the Tournament, since it keeps early round chaos while also rewarding the best teams with weaker opponents in the second weekend.  Expanding to 128 is not as obvious of a choice as it seems, since it will water down the Final Four further while not actually creating additional iconic opening round moments.

 

Great breakdown and points. Rewarding the .500 Power 6 schools would be dumb to me. 

[aphilso1]

22 hours ago, 49r said:

 

When the NCAA expanded the tournament to 64 in 1985 (commonly regarded as the modern era of the NCAA tournament) the number of teams in Division 1 was 280.

 

64/280 = 22.857% of the teams in Division 1 qualified for the NCAA tournament.  That's already a hideously low percentage of teams in a given league that is given the opportunity to compete in the post season.  Pro sports (outside of baseball) generally have about a third to half of their teams compete in the post season.  No casual viewers complain that those post seasons are watered down.

 

This year, there are 363 teams in Division 1 and just 18.73% of the teams will qualify.  Of that 18.73%, there are 21 conferences whose AQ's are typically ranked below 70 or so and who do not realistically have a chance at advancing at all, let alone win the whole thing.  That leaves 11 AQ's (at most) that are higher than that 70 ranking.  That's 47 teams in the field that one could realistically think have a chance at winning a game.  12.95%.  The percentage of teams that actually have a realistic shot at the final four or the championship is much MUCH smaller still.  Probably less than 5%.

 

Of course we don't watch to just see the top powerhouse teams slug it out for a championship.  That's boring (because College Basketball to the casual fan is boring).  The whole reason to tune in to the tournament (and the only reason for probably 95% of sports fans to watch any college hoops at all) is to see the Cinderellas make their run.  The vast majority of people tune in to March Madness to watch the UM-Baltimore County's and Saint Peter's and Loyola's of the world achieve the impossible...and the gambling fun that goes with it.

 

Expand the tournament to 128 and add another few days to the tournament.  Give us one more week to embrace the chaos that comes with it and one more week in the spring to have something fun to talk about.  Hell, I say expand it even to 256 teams.  Get everybody in there!  Let's make this the greatest spectacle in sports.

 

I like your analysis, even though I disagree with your conclusion. I'm going to quote what I think is your key point here:

"The whole reason to tune in to the tournament (and the only reason for probably 95% of sports fans to watch any college hoops at all) is to see the Cinderellas make their run."

 

It seems you are assuming that an expansion to 128 will increase the number of Cinderella runs, but it won't.  There are only so many potential Cinderellas out there (i.e. scrappy small conference teams with enough talent to take down a high seed).  Doubling the field doesn't double the number of Cinderellas.  Just look at the NIT field, and that tells you what teams would be added to the NCAA field if we expand to 128.  You'll get a couple extra small conference regular season champs that lost their conference tourney.  But you're getting a whole lot more Rutgers and Washingtons and Mississippi States -- teams that are boring, not a Cinderella, but just good enough that they can beat a good team on any given night.  Going to 128 doesn't increase the number of Cinderella moments, but it does increase the likelihood of a bland Final Four field.

[basketballjones]

23 hours ago, 49r said:

Of course we don't watch to just see the top powerhouse teams slug it out for a championship.  That's boring (because College Basketball to the casual fan is boring).  The whole reason to tune in to the tournament (and the only reason for probably 95% of sports fans to watch any college hoops at all) is to see the Cinderellas make their run.  The vast majority of people tune in to March Madness to watch the UM-Baltimore County's and Saint Peter's and Loyola's of the world achieve the impossible...and the gambling fun that goes with it.

49r - excellent analysis. 

My only disagreement is the point I have quoted here. I do not believe there is any viewership data that backs up your point you are trying to make here. From my pure recollection (have done zero research on this), the most viewed Elite 8s and Final Fours typically are composed of the big, blue-blood, national fanbase teams. The general public wants to watch the best teams with the biggest names/coaches/draft picks, etc... Of course everyone loves 1 or 2 Cinderellas being thrown in the mix -not arguing that. But what draws massive viewership is the blue bloods/national brands. 

 

I of course have zero data to back this up - if you do please shed some light on that. 

[Chuck Taylor]

27 minutes ago, basketballjones said:

49r - excellent analysis. 

 I do not believe there is any viewership data that backs up your point you are trying to make here.

Data:

Quote

Friday’s Saint Peter’s-Purdue men’s NCAA Tournament regional semifinal averaged 10.18 million viewers on CBS, surpassing Kentucky-Louisville in 2014 (10.09M) as the most-watched Sweet 16 game since Kentucky-Ohio State on CBS in 2011, the first year all games began airing in individual windows (10.71M).

Also:

Quote

Two men’s basketball games featuring St. Peter’s University landed among the 20 most-watched television programs in primetime last week for the first time ever.

The NCAA tournament’s underdog darlings hit the big time with their victories over Kentucky and Murray State, the Nielsen company said.

Fans are obviously intrigued by their story, since the Jersey City school’s second game against Murray State had more viewers than the game with Kentucky, one of the NCAA’s blue bloods.

From Loyola's run:

Quote

Loyola’s underdog run has been a healthy TV draw. Three of the Ramblers’ first four tournament games have posted an increase in ratings and viewership, each by double-digits.

 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Chuck Taylor
edit

[cornfed24-7]

1 hour ago, aphilso1 said:

 

I like your analysis, even though I disagree with your conclusion. I'm going to quote what I think is your key point here:

"The whole reason to tune in to the tournament (and the only reason for probably 95% of sports fans to watch any college hoops at all) is to see the Cinderellas make their run."

 

It seems you are assuming that an expansion to 128 will increase the number of Cinderella runs, but it won't.  There are only so many potential Cinderellas out there (i.e. scrappy small conference teams with enough talent to take down a high seed).  Doubling the field doesn't double the number of Cinderellas.  Just look at the NIT field, and that tells you what teams would be added to the NCAA field if we expand to 128.  You'll get a couple extra small conference regular season champs that lost their conference tourney.  But you're getting a whole lot more Rutgers and Washingtons and Mississippi States -- teams that are boring, not a Cinderella, but just good enough that they can beat a good team on any given night.  Going to 128 doesn't increase the number of Cinderella moments, but it does increase the likelihood of a bland Final Four field.

I think your analysis is correct only if the assumption used is that if the tournament expands the same format for the current 68 that make the field stays the same then the next 60 teams that make it is in some sort of ranked order. Which would obviously favor the power conferences. An easy fix to your theory is to make AQ's the regular season conference champs AND tournament winners.

[HuskerFever]

1 hour ago, aphilso1 said:

TL;DR -- Re-seeding before the Sweet 16 is the best way to improve the Tournament, since it keeps early round chaos while also rewarding the best teams with weaker opponents in the second weekend.

 

And completely eliminates bracket challenges which turn casual fans away.

[aphilso1]

48 minutes ago, cornfed24-7 said:

I think your analysis is correct only if the assumption used is that if the tournament expands the same format for the current 68 that make the field stays the same then the next 60 teams that make it is in some sort of ranked order. Which would obviously favor the power conferences. An easy fix to your theory is to make AQ's the regular season conference champs AND tournament winners.

 

I agree that moving to 128 should mean all regular season and all tournament champs get in.  But that adds what, maybe an extra 7 or 8 small conference AQs?  The vast majority of the additional 60 teams will be selected on an at-large basis, which means the vast majority of the additional teams will be mediocre power conference teams.  That's great for us as Husker fans, but bad for the tournament as a whole.  128 is not the answer.

[aphilso1]

38 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

And completely eliminates bracket challenges which turn casual fans away.

 

I will concede that point.  Not sure how overall that would effect TV numbers though (which is what the decision will ultimately come down to anyway).  If you re-seed, then you will likely have better viewership in the second and third weekend.  But the downside is that fewer people filling out brackets means fewer people watching the opening weekend. 

[49r]

1 hour ago, Chuck Taylor said:

Data:

Also:

From Loyola's run:

 

 

Thanks for digging that up @Chuck Taylor.  The viewership stuff was purely anecdotal on my part and I guess I got called out on it, so thanks for doing the work that I was too lazy to do.  

 

But I will say that for me personally, I love seeing the Cinderellas and the non-elite teams play in the tournament.  I will watch a #8 vs #12 sweet 16 matchup every day of the week over, say, Syracuse vs UCLA or something.  The big schools are all over-exposed anyway and I cherish the opportunity to see lower seeds do well.  I think (again this is just anecdotal) that the average American sports fans love watching the underdog story as well, particularly when observing as a neutral.

[aphilso1]

11 minutes ago, 49r said:

 

Thanks for digging that up @Chuck Taylor.  The viewership stuff was purely anecdotal on my part and I guess I got called out on it, so thanks for doing the work that I was too lazy to do.  

 

But I will say that for me personally, I love seeing the Cinderellas and the non-elite teams play in the tournament.  I will watch a #8 vs #12 sweet 16 matchup every day of the week over, say, Syracuse vs UCLA or something.  The big schools are all over-exposed anyway and I cherish the opportunity to see lower seeds do well.  I think (again this is just anecdotal) that the average American sports fans love watching the underdog story as well, particularly when observing as a neutral.

 

You know what's even better as a pair of Sweet 16 matchups?  #8 vs Syracuse and #12 vs UCLA, rather than #8 vs #12 and Syracuse vs UCLA.  That gives the average American a rooting interest, as we all love cheering for a small conference school to take down a blue blood.  That's why re-seeding at the Sweet 16 would improve the tournament.

[cornfed24-7]

1 hour ago, aphilso1 said:

 

I agree that moving to 128 should mean all regular season and all tournament champs get in.  But that adds what, maybe an extra 7 or 8 small conference AQs?  The vast majority of the additional 60 teams will be selected on an at-large basis, which means the vast majority of the additional teams will be mediocre power conference teams.  That's great for us as Husker fans, but bad for the tournament as a whole.  128 is not the answer.

An underdog is an underdog is an underdog regardless which conference they come from. Duke vs Kentucky is BORING.  And its only gonna get more boring as we get further along in the NIL era. Watching bought teams isn't fun. A bigger tent fixes that. Or at least tries to. We still probably end up with Duke vs Kentucky though

Edited October 19, 2022 by cornfed24-7

[cornfed24-7]

⁹

45 minutes ago, 49r said:

 I will watch a #8 vs #12 sweet 16 matchup every day of the week over, say, Syracuse vs UCLA or something.

Are you my long lost twin brother separated at birth? Are you in my damn head? My thinking aligns EXACTLY with yours too often to be coincidence

[HuscurAdam]

3 hours ago, aphilso1 said:

TL;DR -- Re-seeding before the Sweet 16 is the best way to improve the Tournament, since it keeps early round chaos while also rewarding the best teams with weaker opponents in the second weekend.  Expanding to 128 is not as obvious of a choice as it seems, since it will water down the Final Four further while not actually creating additional iconic opening round moments.

 

I love this idea but it will *never* happen. The biggest allure of the tournament for the casual fan isn't the compelling matchups, it's the bracket and everything that goes along with it (cough-gambling-cough). Re-seeding would take away the #1 thing that keeps casual fans engaged.    

[basketballjones]

2 hours ago, Chuck Taylor said:

Data:

Also:

From Loyola's run:

 

Thank you. Although I'm not sure that doesn't... somewhat... go towards my point? People like it when 1-2 cinderellas are involved - but for total viewership, especially in the later rounds, you need the big dogs. And I hate to be "that guy" with the St. Peters thing... but that was one game. Is it always like that with Cinderellas? 

[Chuck Taylor]

8 minutes ago, basketballjones said:

Thank you. Although I'm not sure that doesn't... somewhat... go towards my point? People like it when 1-2 cinderellas are involved - but for total viewership, especially in the later rounds, you need the big dogs. And I hate to be "that guy" with the St. Peters thing... but that was one game. Is it always like that with Cinderellas? 

It was like that for Loyola's run in 2020 too. Those are the obvious ones. TV ratings for the first two rounds of 2021 show Loyola's win over Illinois ranked 3rd and Oral Roberts' win over Purdue 5th. My research dept. is shutting down now.

[lang]

I think 128 teams would be great.  But I don’t like the idea of a 32 seed playing a 1, kinda pointless.   So to address that and the “watered down tourney” concerns, do this instead….96 teams with the top 32 teams getting  a bye.  Seed teams 35-96 however and play those first round games.  Now you’re down to 64 again. Not sure if it’d be better to have the brackets all set with all 96 or to seed after the first round games.  OR …. Even better, start with 128 teams.  A top 64 and bottom 64.  Bottom 64 play each other with the winners then playing teams 33-64.  Now you’re down to 64.  Are you kidding me, this would be awesome.  Get rid of the other tournaments (NIT, CBI, CIT).  Make it a big deal for all of D1 college basketball.  Don’t allow this to benefit lower teams in the big conferences.  Instead give other conferences the benefit.  Especially in the current climate, not much difference between teams 34-128.  Many will disagree with that I’m sure.  The 128 scenario would be awesome.