PETERSON: Was anything really wrong with a 64-team, no play-in NCAA Tourney?

[jcordova8]

Randy’s latest takes on NCAA Tournament expansion and whether it was even necessary.

PETERSON: Was anything really wrong with a 64-team, no play-in NCAA Tourney? - Cyclone Fanatic

Mandatory Credit: Chris Jones-Imagn Images Well, unfortunately, it must be true. I figured after a few days of thought and taking the pulse of the public that our sports leaders would retract last week’s decision that will change, for the worse, college sports’ most popular national tournament...

cyclonefanatic.com

 

[geewago]

NO 64 teams were fine. if anything that was too many

 

[mkadl]

Easier games for the tops seeds?

 

[TitanClone]

64 was perfect, 68 was fine. This expansion is dumb, it's just adding 8 teams from the P5 that have no shot. Quick look the Big 12 would have likely had 3 more teams this year in Cincy, Baylor and West Virginia. But money always wins. More TV, more tickets and more gambling.

 

[1TwistedCyclone]

64 was great. Such a great number, they should have just expanded the NIT to 64, and spun the PR on it differently.

 

[2020cy]

I can’t believe I agree with Randy.

 

[Clonehomer]

64 was great. Such a great number, they should have just expanded the NIT to 64, and spun the PR on it differently.

I’ve enjoyed the NIT more since they got it organized a few years back. I agree that should have been emphasized more and let those up and coming or small schools play in a tournament that they can win a few games.

I guess my biggest issue is how they are treating the 16 seeds. It used to be that if you make a run in your conference tournament you got a shot against Goliath. Yes, the 16 seeds lost until Virginia decided to play a style that makes your eyes bleed as a #1 seed. But they got their shot. Now, they’re paired up with another team that made a similar run and it’s just not the same feeling of playing in the tournament.

 

[madguy30]

Randy's polarizing with the headlines lately because this one slams.

64 was perfect.

 

[1TwistedCyclone]

I’ve enjoyed the NIT more since they got it organized a few years back. I agree that should have been emphasized more and let those up and coming or small schools play in a tournament that they can win a few games.

I guess my biggest issue is how they are treating the 16 seeds. It used to be that if you make a run in your conference tournament you got a shot against Goliath. Yes, the 16 seeds lost until Virginia decided to play a style that makes your eyes bleed as a #1 seed. But they got their shot. Now, they’re paired up with another team that made a similar run and it’s just not the same feeling of playing in the tournament.

There are lot of ways to crack this nut, while still creating competition (and tv ratings).

 

[Cycsk]

I'm still struggling to see where all the extra money comes from by adding teams. Sure, maybe there will be a little, particularly in the TV viewership of markets of the teams that barely make it, but it doesn't seem like the kind of money that justifies such a significant change.

 

[Clonehomer]

I'm still struggling to see where all the extra money comes from by adding teams. Sure, maybe there will be a little, particularly in the TV viewership of markets of the teams that barely make it, but it doesn't seem like the kind of money that justifies such a significant change.

It feels like this move is to dilute the money for each share of the overall money. Each game played is worth an amount of money. So each conference champ is guaranteed that money. If you increase the denominator, those conferences that are one and done (mid and low majors mostly) get a smaller piece of the pie. So even if the pie isn’t growing significantly, the P5 conferences still gain because they’re the ones that are going to get the additional teams.

 

[PrimeCy]

64 was perfect, 68 was fine. This expansion is dumb, it's just adding 8 teams from the P5 that have no shot. Quick look the Big 12 would have likely had 3 more teams this year in Cincy, Baylor and West Virginia. But money always wins. More TV, more tickets and more gambling.

I hadn't thought about the gambling aspect. I wonder how much that plays a part in decisions they make now. Probably quite a bit.

 

[CycloneErik]

Nothing was wrong with it. The only thing wrong is making me agree with Randy.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Call me crazy but I guess I didn't need Rand to tell me that 68/64 was perfect...

 

[tim_redd]

I'm still struggling to see where all the extra money comes from by adding teams. Sure, maybe there will be a little, particularly in the TV viewership of markets of the teams that barely make it, but it doesn't seem like the kind of money that justifies such a significant change.

What are the viewing numbers for the first four games? I can't imagine they are that great but not sure?

 

[cykadelic2]

I'm still struggling to see where all the extra money comes from by adding teams. Sure, maybe there will be a little, particularly in the TV viewership of markets of the teams that barely make it, but it doesn't seem like the kind of money that justifies such a significant change.

CBS/Turner and ESPN didn't want to pay much more for the additional TUES/WED games and who could blame them?

Due to that, the NCAA reportedly had to open up sponsorships to alcoholic beverage companies (who were previously excluded) to cover the increase in operating expenses for the additional venue(s) and payouts for the additional teams in both the MBB and WBB tourneys.

 

[TitanClone]

I hadn't thought about the gambling aspect. I wonder how much that plays a part in decisions they make now. Probably quite a bit.

Who knows how to quantify it but it's guaranteed the big online gambling sites were lobbying the NCAA hard for this. They know chumps like me will throw a few bucks at some portion of these extra games.

 

[cyclones500]

Call me crazy but I guess I didn't need Rand to tell me that 68/64 was perfect...

I tend to be less critical of Randy than some in the fanbase, in a big-picture way, but this column draws a similar conclusion as recent takes by nearly every other analyst.

 

[PrimeCy]

Who knows how to quantify it but it's guaranteed the big online gambling sites were lobbying the NCAA hard for this. They know chumps like me will throw a few bucks at some portion of these extra games.

Yeah, follow the money.

 

[VeloClone]

They keep crowing about more opportunity but what I see is making teams that used to be in the dance have to play their way into the dance. There used to be 64 teams in the dance. Then there were 60 with 8 having to play in to get in. Now there are 52 actually getting in the dance with 24 teams having to play their way in.

This is far from an improvement.