USC/UCLA to the Big Ten in 24?

RustShack

Chiefs Dynasty
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jan 27, 2010
12,123
6,082
113
Adventureland
If expansion of the NCAA Basketball Tournament means more than 68 teams as a way to get more P6 schools in the tourney, that would be a bad idea. IMO the big schools get enough visibility and play enough top 30 teams to identify tournament worthy P6 teams.

For some of the other 26ish conferences, especially those that don't typically get multiple bids, I could see a couple rounds of play-in games. It is tough when teams have great regular seasons in non-P5 leagues get upset in their conference tournament and don't get selected to the NCAA Tournament.
Maybe if it is for some reason expanded, each conference can get two auto bids. One for conference champions, and one for tournament champions. Typically both of them are either the same school or already in the tournament anyways, but as you said it could help some of the non P6.

Personally I don’t mind it how it is, but maybe an idea if it does get expanded again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2speedy1

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jan 4, 2014
3,045
3,435
113
I don't think they need to add teams, necessarily. I think there could be a change in how they do things, or how they select teams.

I think they could possibly add more to the play ins, but in order to do that they need to pull guaranteed spots out. So instead of 2 - 11s and 2-15s you would do 4 -11s and 4 -15s this would only add a couple bubble spots, but make those bottom bubbles play in. That would be the only way I would say any should be added. Something similar to this anyway by making more of the spots play ins.

Another thing that I could see is they make the finals or final 4 etc. be a series of 3 games etc. But again, not really needed. Would just be more about money than anything.

Of the things the NCAA manages, the tournament is actually one of the better ones things they control. Too much change to it may make a worse product rather than better.
 

cyclones500

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2010
31,415
18,431
113
Michigan
basslakebeacon.com
His general comment focuses specifically on SEC schools. I get it, it's his job to promote the league. He could give 2 s***s about whether tournaments are 64, 80, 96 teams.

He mentioned A&M missing at-large for NCCAT, then tossed a random bone by mentioning Dayton, referring to UD as "somebody else."

Good for good ol' Ole Miss to take advantage of invite for baseball and win the title. But it got an invitation. What's the complaint?
 

Cloneon

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2015
2,151
2,136
113
West Virginia
Interesting that the green/yellow distinctions lines up for both right at 1M viewers. Almost like if you’re on a OTA network you’re guaranteed 1M and if you’re limited to cable it’s hard to crack 1M. Now part of that is network reach and part is that the best games get put OTA. It’s why the B10 wants this self fulfilling prophecy in place to have a triple header on OTA networks to keep drawing ratings and promoting their brands.
Maybe someone can answer this. Do they count 'public' spots (eg bars) as a single viewer? Or do they do some sort of occupancy estimate? And, if 'said' bar has multiple games on, how does that correlate?
I'm sure the Nielson ratings are a refined system, but it's still subject to allot "filling in the blanks" which makes me shake my technological mind. o_O
 

twojman

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2006
6,562
2,033
113
Clive
I think bars are estimates. I do know this, if a bar has nfl network etc they don't get charged a single subscription like a home. Bars are charged on some sort of capacity basis. This is old but all I can find right now. Yikes!
 

BCClone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
52,235
45,225
113
North Iowa
What is ESPN going to do if they make him mad? If ESPN dropped the SEC tomorrow, every network would be ready to make deals with them.
Well, the SEC needs to deal with their mess first. While they are trying to kill football and basketball, they have the conference grim reaper showing up in a year or two. Good luck with the whorns
 

clonedude

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
26,602
20,268
113
So.... absolutely nothing new to report yet huh? I'll stop back again in a few days.

Anyone getting the idea that nothing is going to happen for quite a while?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlySpartan

PickSix

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2013
247
324
63
So.... absolutely nothing new to report yet huh? I'll stop back again in a few days.

Anyone getting the idea that nothing is going to happen for quite a while?

I don't think it can be too long. Realistically, how long do you think it'll take for the PAC to take in bids for a tv deal? Now that the market has been set by the B1G, I imagine they'll have an idea of where they stand pretty quickly.

It doesn't benefit anyone to have this drag out longer than it needs to.

I think there's a good possibility that the PAC holds things together and wards off expansion for another 5 or 6 years, but my guess we'll have a good idea one way or another in the next few weeks.
 

Paddythefatty

Active Member
Jul 25, 2021
112
68
28
On the topic of ESPN. I was surprised on Disneys Q3 earnings report that ESPN makes FAR more money than their movie business, and its not even close.
Is the marvel money train even doing well? Spider-Man was a big success but both Thor & Dr Strange seemed to have lost their momentum. Blade might be the only one I’m excited to see
 

jctisu

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2017
3,944
4,728
113
35
On the topic of ESPN. I was surprised on Disneys Q3 earnings report that ESPN makes FAR more money than their movie business, and its not even close.
People constantly don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to the money ESPN still generates for Disney. The Walt Disney Co. has had a pretty good track record of making smart financial decisions (hiccups like any company that size of course) so if ESPN is really the drag everyone says it is they would have cut loose when they had the chance a few years ago. Chapek has stated time and again the value of live sports is still unmatched by anything they have under that massive umbrella.
 

jctisu

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2017
3,944
4,728
113
35
Is the marvel money train even doing well? Spider-Man was a big success but both Thor & Dr Strange seemed to have lost their momentum. Blade might be the only one I’m excited to see
Those movies, although not quite the success some thought they would be, are still printing money. I think Thor L&T was a $250M budget and has passed over $700M in global earned. Dr. Strange 2 was super divisive and still took home almost a billion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paddythefatty