College Basketball

[Drake Tungsten]

True; you leave out this addedum, however: that is a completely ****ing retarded reason to do so.

Oh, I totally agree; I'm just saying that it has nothing to do with popularity or financial concerns. The real problem is that the polls start way too early in the season and pollsters are far too reluctant to make major changes to their initial rankings.

You should never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. That's why I assume people like Ming and ColdWizard are stupid and not evil...

[ColdWizard]

Are you saying Oklahoma over Auburn wasn't a financial move?

Of course it wasn't. Any non-idiot knows why Oklahoma and USC played each other; they started the season ahead of Auburn in the polls and never slipped up.

Good to know that a team can win the SEC, go undefeated and still have their season mean nothing because of the start of the year polls. As for the rest, we'll just go on ignoring the Boise States, and Utahs... wait, why are they even in the division? Just shove them down with Appalachian State. That might end all our disagreeing

[Drake Tungsten]

Good to know that a team can win the SEC, go undefeated and still have their season mean nothing because of the start of the year polls.

If this is really your problem, you'd be better off calling for changes to the polls like Guy and myself rather than an unnecessary playoff that would negatively impact the regular season.

[ColdWizard]

You should never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. That's why I assume people like Ming and ColdWizard are stupid and not evil...

You need to go back to the other thread and tell me why my comparison of Notre Dame and Nebraska recruiting is idiotic, the thread already fell out of the 10 day barrier once.

[Drake Tungsten]

If I remember correctly, your "comparison" was just a bunch of numbers thrown out there with no context or explanation of why you thought they mattered. They also didn't seem that different from one another. I didn't respond because I had no idea what point you were trying to make and don't like wasting time on ***** unless I have a clear reason to insult them.

[Ming]

Every system has flaws. I'm intellectually honest enough to admit the flaws in the current system, while you seem incapable of doing the same with your varying playoff proposals. You seem to really believe that college football can have a playoff without affecting the regular season, which is just stupid. There are tradeoffs in everything.

It currently has a playoff/championship game. Again, please explain how a four vs the current two team system will affect the regular season in any big way. And one more time, please explain how this would make the regular season revenue less, as YOU HAVE CLAIMED. You're beliefs are based on nothing and don't stand the test of logic... which is just stupid.

[Drake Tungsten]

Again, please explain how a four vs the current two team system will affect the regular season in any big way.

Both Guy and I have explained this to you on numerous occasions. You just don't want to listen.

[Ming]

And you simply don't understand... your examples prove nothing. A four team system vs a two team system would add even more excitement and not change the regular season at all.

And again, why haven't you answered the question about reduced revenue for the regular season... oh that's right, because it was idiotic on your part and makes no sense. You're belief that the tv providers would run out and lower the current contracts simply because of a 4 team playoff vs 2 team playoff is simply stupid and shows you have no real knowledge of how the system works.

But like usual... you will throw some insults around, and try to bully people into thinking your opinion is actually valid even when it's dead wrong, and then claim people don't read well, or listen...

So one more time... REDUCED REVENUE FOR THE REGULAR SEASON because of a change from 2 teams to 4.
You simply have no clue.

[Drake Tungsten]

Go read my previous posts on the subject. I'm not wasting any more time on you.

[SlowwHand]

Dear Drake,

No, you're an idiot. You don't listen. You don't consider other viewpoints. You ignore certain facts.
In other words, you're really not worth the time that people expend on you.

Sincerely,
SlowwHand

Addressed previously.

[SlowwHand]

---Topic change divider for Sloww ---

Brittney Griner highlights are almost enough to get me to watch women's basketball.

A freshman.

[Ming]

Go read my previous posts on the subject. I'm not wasting any more time on you.

Yep... ignore the subject when you get caught with your pants down with no defense. Typical of you.

Again... please show us you lack of wisdom on the subject of reduced revenue for the regular season if there is a change from 2 teams to 4... You know absolutely nothing about the topic and you have proved it with every post you have made on the subject. Maybe you should stick to topics you actually have even a little understanding of instead of those that you don't have a clue about.

[ColdWizard]

A freshman.

No ****? So she should only get better... like... 20 blocks?

[ColdWizard]

NCAA outlines plan for expanding to 96 teams.

INDIANAPOLIS -- The NCAA appears to be on the verge of expanding the men's basketball tournament to 96 teams.

Insisting that nothing has been decided, NCAA vice president Greg Shaheen nonetheless outlined a detailed plan Thursday that included the logistics and timing of a 96-team tournament, how much time off the players would have and even revenue distribution.

Shaheen said the NCAA looked at keeping the current 65-team field and expanding to 68 or 80 teams, but decided the bigger bracket was the best fit logistically and financially.

It would be played during the same time frame as the current three-week tournament and include first-round byes for 32 teams.

Although the plan still needs to be approved by the Division I Men's Basketball Committee and passed on to the board of directors, most of the details already seem to be in place.

"We needed to make sure that we did everything possible to use the due diligence window to understand ourselves and understand what the future would hold," Shaheen said. "So that's what we're doing, that's the process we're undertaking. We've been handling it every day for the last several months and years, as we studied for the benefit of the organization."

The men's tournament last expanded in 2001, adding one team to the 64-team field that was set in 1985.

The 96-team tournament would likely envelop the 32-team NIT, though Shaheen said no decision has been made on what to do with the NCAA's other, independently operated season-ending tournament.

The new format would start two days later than the current 65-team field because it would eliminate the Tuesday play-in game and would conclude on the same day, a Monday. It would be played at one fewer venue -- again, the play-in game -- and the NCAA says it would include no additional travel time for teams.

The first-round games for the 64 non-bye teams would take place on Thursday and Friday, with the winners playing the top eight seeds in each region on Saturday and Sunday. Winners on Saturday would likely play again on Tuesday, and the Sunday winners on Wednesday.

Those winners would then move on to the regionals, playing alternate days starting on Thursday. Shaheen said the NCAA hasn't decided on whether to keep the same sites for second and first-round games or to make the midweek sites the same as the regionals.

He also said the amount of time student-athletes would be out of school would be roughly the same as the current model, but teams that play in the opening round and keep winning would actually be out an entire week of school instead of just a few days.

"On a 96-team basis -- vs. the current 97 teams that the NCAA conducts through the championship and the NIT, for example -- you have, on a side-by-side basis, a reduction in the travel time," Shaheen said.

Adding teams to the NCAA tournament could create some monumentally lopsided games, or seeds in the 30s and 90s playing each other. There might be less importance on the regular season and conference tournaments; the resume wouldn't need to be padded so much if more teams get in.

"I don't see any watering down at all," Minnesota coach Tubby Smith said. "I think there are a number of teams playing in the NIT that could have gotten in, and I think there will be more people and more excitement with more teams in."

Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski said he would like to see regular-season and conference tournament champions get automatic bids to the NCAA tournament.

"The regular season would mean something," he said. "There would still be bubble teams and all that, but we would reward those teams accordingly. And I would still like the conference tournament champions. They make a lot of money and celebrate each conference. I think it's a way of each conference celebrating their conference, which is a good thing."

Any plans to expand the tournament hinge on the NCAA's $6 billion television deal with CBS.

The 11-year deal, signed in 1999, has a mutual opt-out until July 31. The NCAA has already spoken with numerous networks about expansion, so the opt-out is at least on the table, and adding 32 more teams is certainly going to bring in more revenue.

The proposal is strictly for the men's tournament. Another NCAA committee is looking at whether to expand the women's tournament or keep it in the current format.

Emphasis mine.

[Drake Tungsten]

Billy Packer explains the NCAA's greed to the Chicago Sun-Times...

On the proposed expansion of the tournament: ''The expansion has absolutely nothing to do with the sport of basketball. It has to do with the economics of the NCAA and its broadcast partner CBS. Because this multiyear contract was backloaded at the end, CBS is looking at losing probably a billion dollars during the remaining years [2010-13] of the contract.

''Surprisingly, the way the contract was written, the 'out' for that last three years belongs to the NCAA, not CBS. I can assure you if it was CBS' 'out,' they'd be long gone. The reason it was the NCAA's 'out' was because everyone assumed the rights fees would continue to increase. So the NCAA said, 'OK, we'll make it a long-term deal but in 2010' -- which seemed like 100 years from when the deal was signed -- 'we want the right to opt out and see what the financial landscape is like.'

''Now they're finding out that what CBS is paying this year and will continue to pay through 2013 is far more than any other suitor would pay. The only way the network can possibly offset those losses is to have more inventory to sell. So the expansion of the tournament would allow the rights-holder to cut down on the losses.''

On ESPN taking over the tournament: ''They're the one guy who wouldn't have to be covered by all of [the conventional network revenues] because of the monthly [cable-share] charge they get from viewers. Obviously, it would be an enormously prestigious property for ESPN to hold. But they have no reason to take CBS off the hook financially.''

On the NCAA and future rights fees: ''The basketball championship generates over 90 percent of the total gross revenue of the NCAA, which has 86 other championships to fund. If they were to take $300 million less for the men's tournament, how would they afford to pay for those other championships and maintain the reimbursements back to the schools that participate? That's why tournament expansion is being discussed. This has nothing to do with the betterment of the event.''

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/jim_odonnell/2134821,CST-SPT-od01.article

I'm sure glad such a dysfunctional body isn't in charge of college football's postseason.