I agree but I see Watson as a wing and Ward as a forward.Watson is way ahead of Ward imo.
I agree but I see Watson as a wing and Ward as a forward.Watson is way ahead of Ward imo.
I think it depends on if King or Billiew can guard a 5 consistently. If so, then agree Watson starts ahead of Ward. Billiew probably could, but I think he will be a terror defensively against wings and stretch 4 types. King is only 6’7 but he is rugged and physical.Watson is way ahead of Ward imo.
You are correct, but going to 2 out of 3 for the Final Four alone would add 4 or 5 games, and probably $150M. Moneymoneymoneymon-aaaaa!
Yeah, I kind of hate the idea, but $400k would be a big deal to say, UNI or someone in the OVC...It would be between three and six games -- three if all three matchups are 2-0, six of all were 2-1.
$150 million is $400,000 per college program (roughly).
You are correct, but going to 2 out of 3 for the Final Four alone would add 4 or 5 games, and probably $150M. Moneymoneymoneymon-aaaaa!
I think ratings take a dive on a per game basis. Maybe it gets made up in volume. However, I think the interest in the entire tournament takes a dive. The randomness is what drives viewers, which in turn drives TV value.It would be between three and six games -- three if all three matchups are 2-0, six of all were 2-1.
$150 million is $400,000 per college program (roughly).
I think ratings take a dive on a per game basis. Maybe it gets made up in volume. However, I think the interest in the entire tournament takes a dive. The randomness is what drives viewers, which in turn drives TV value.
When you look at ratings of regular season CBB vs. March Madness, it seems like they have pretty much optimized the value of the tournament.
I think ratings take a dive on a per game basis. Maybe it gets made up in volume. However, I think the interest in the entire tournament takes a dive. The randomness is what drives viewers, which in turn drives TV value.
When you look at ratings of regular season CBB vs. March Madness, it seems like they have pretty much optimized the value of the tournament.
I could see that. I think a FF with 3 game series and leaving it one game prior to that would still be pretty awesome. Probably stretches the tourney out 2 weeks, which would be reasonable.Of course, ratings by round may be driven by different effects.
Chaos seems to drive the ratings of the first weekend, but as I recall as we go through the tourney it seems to tilt more towards having great games with the best teams advancing to the next round- the ratings sink when you end up with the chaos teams deep in the tournament. So at some level it may make sense to have some kind of series for advancement either starting in the F4 or E8
Watson isn't going to play the 5Watson is way ahead of Ward imo.
I could see that. I think a FF with 3 game series and leaving it one game prior to that would still be pretty awesome. Probably stretches the tourney out 2 weeks, which would be reasonable.
I think that's a good way to describe the tourney. The first 2-3 rounds is about the chaos, then it tends to settle into the big boy matchups mostly.
Not to mention, if two college teams played each three times in a week, that familiarity might breed lots of intensity.
This might help us cyclone fans still upset losing to Oklahoma state today temple a 19+ underdog to number one Houston at Houston beat the cougars
Teams lose in college basketball? UNACCEPTABLE.
Free throws.This might help us cyclone fans still upset losing to Oklahoma state today temple a 19+ underdog to number one Houston at Houston beat the cougars