Entitlement and 64

[NoVaJack]

Putting this in smack because of my first observation, but if someone thinks it should go elsewhere, have at it.

Was with some KU fans last evening during UNI game and their reaction was telling, and maybe a sign that the era of entitlement is ending in college BB (hurray, and Go Jacks against OU!) Rather than give UNI its due, the reaction was, "fluke," and "we played horribly." But anybody who saw that game could see UNI is very good, and could advance even further. And no high seed should be feeling comfortable today.

Getting to the point: I'm not sure this kind of win would ever have a reasonable chance of happening this early in the tournament if it went to a bigger field. #1 seeds would be guaranteed matches against seeds in the 50s or above for at least the first two games, maybe even more if "upsets" in other brackets occurred. In other words, they'd be playing teams that probably got knocked out the second round of the NIT. Not saying it couldn't happen, there are always the Chaminade Cinderellas out there, but more realistically it's going to be a lot tougher for the kind of bracket-busting "shockers" we saw yesterday if the field goes to more than 64.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Entitlement and 64

On Mike & Mike this morning, Dick Vitale pleaded & prayed that the powers not change things because of this. Unfortunately, he said it sounds like it (changing to 96) has already been decided.

[rational thought]

Re: Entitlement and 64

On Mike & Mike this morning, Dick Vitale pleaded & prayed that the powers not change things because of this. Unfortunately, he said it sounds like it (changing to 96) has already been decided.

that will dry up the NIT really quick

[filbert]

Re: Entitlement and 64

that will dry up the NIT really quick

I think that's the idea. The NCAA owns the NIT now, and there's really not a huge reason or benefit (read: $$$) to run two tournaments . . .

[rational thought]

Re: Entitlement and 64

I think that's the idea. The NCAA owns the NIT now, and there's really not a huge reason or benefit (read: $$$) to run two tournaments . . .

then shut it down....put it all ($$$) in ncaa's...and leave it....meddling will ruin it

[Jacked_Up]

Re: Entitlement and 64

I don't mind seeing the NCAA tournament expand. I'd rather see that than the continued proliferation of other post-season invitationals. Even at 96 teams, more than two-thirds of schools wouldn't qualify. Of course, I also think they should raise the rim to 11 feet for colleges and to 12 feet for pros.

[KUlawJack]

Re: Entitlement and 64

Putting this in smack because of my first observation, but if someone thinks it should go elsewhere, have at it.

Was with some KU fans last evening during UNI game and their reaction was telling, and maybe a sign that the era of entitlement is ending in college BB (hurray, and Go Jacks against OU!) Rather than give UNI its due, the reaction was, "fluke," and "we played horribly." But anybody who saw that game could see UNI is very good, and could advance even further. And no high seed should be feeling comfortable today.

Getting to the point: I'm not sure this kind of win would ever have a reasonable chance of happening this early in the tournament if it went to a bigger field. #1 seeds would be guaranteed matches against seeds in the 50s or above for at least the first two games, maybe even more if "upsets" in other brackets occurred. In other words, they'd be playing teams that probably got knocked out the second round of the NIT. Not saying it couldn't happen, there are always the Chaminade Cinderellas out there, but more realistically it's going to be a lot tougher for the kind of bracket-busting "shockers" we saw yesterday if the field goes to more than 64.

Exactly.

Nah, UNI controlled the tempo the whole entire game and KU played with them at that dictated pace. Only in the last three or so minutes did Coach Self try to speed it up and play to the strength of KU (see athletic advantage). UNI had the same game plan as Cornell did earlier in the year, but executed it to perfection, hence the win. I can give them their due, though I hate UNI even more now then ever before. GO MICHIGAN STATE!

As for the topic at hand, I pray they do not expand the tournament.

[MikeHenriksen]

Re: Entitlement and 64

Was there anyone in the country watching the NCAA's this weekend that was saying "...this sucks. We need more mediocre teams in this thing."?

I did not even know about the other 2 tourneys until USD got in one, and I don't care about the NIT at all unless an area team is in it. Why they would want to expand the greatest 3 weeks in sports in beyond me.

[NoVaJack]

Re: Entitlement and 64

Was there anyone in the country watching the NCAA's this weekend that was saying "...this sucks. We need more mediocre teams in this thing."?

I did not even know about the other 2 tourneys until USD got in one, and I don't care about the NIT at all unless an area team is in it. Why they would want to expand the greatest 3 weeks in sports in beyond me.

Totally agree. Why mess with a good thing?

[Nidaros]

Re: Entitlement and 64

Was there anyone in the country watching the NCAA's this weekend that was saying "...this sucks. We need more mediocre teams in this thing."?

I did not even know about the other 2 tourneys until USD got in one, and I don't care about the NIT at all unless an area team is in it. Why they would want to expand the greatest 3 weeks in sports in beyond me.

Most likely fans were not saying we need more mediocare games, but maybe CBS was saying more teams, more games, more ads to sell. No doubt CBS probably can show that the increase in teams might also increase the revene pie and that has to have all the NCAA D1 Presidents mouths watering and hands ringing. Money has to be the driving factor here and not what the fans like or dislike. More mediocare teams yep, but like others said I am sure the NCAA wants the NIT to disappear. Or is being on the bubble and being denied an appearance in the NCAA tourney driving this? The NIT probably pays no more than travel expenses. So its got to be about $$$

[JackJD]

Re: Entitlement and 64

then shut it down....put it all ($$$) in ncaa's...and leave it....meddling will ruin it

That seems to make sense but the problem is: if the NIT is shut down and the NCAA tourney remains at 64/65 teams, then chances are good a "new" NIT -- different name, of course, will spring up. By expanding the tourney, the NCAA will absorb a lot (or all) of the remaining teams that can play the game well.

[Hammersmith]

Re: Entitlement and 64

That seems to make sense but the problem is: if the NIT is shut down and the NCAA tourney remains at 64/65 teams, then chances are good a "new" NIT -- different name, of course, will spring up. By expanding the tourney, the NCAA will absorb a lot (or all) of the remaining teams that can play the game well.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the NCAA was forced to keep the NIT going after they bought it in order to avoid anti-trust issues. Maybe they think they can kill it now that the CIT and CBI have shown up?

The big schools will vote for the expansion because they know almost all the new at-larges will come from the power conferences. The small schools will vote for it because of the illusion that many of the new bids will go to mid-majors. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I think everyone will end up losing.

My theory on why the Big Dance is currently so successful is not because it's great basketball, or the Cinderella stories, or the brackets being filled out all over the country, or the fact that almost every region of the country has someone to cheer for. It's because of all of that put together. There is something for almost everyone in March Madness, and I don't think any other major sporting event can say that. By expanding the field and forcing most of the mid-majors to play each other(or other power schools) in the first round, the NCAA will be eroding at least one leg of the reasons why some people tune in and fill out brackets. Maybe the impact will be small, or maybe it will be enough to knock the luster off the tourney. Once that's gone, it will be tough to get back.

Just my $0.02.

[NoVaJack]

Re: Entitlement and 64

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the NCAA was forced to keep the NIT going after they bought it in order to avoid anti-trust issues. Maybe they think they can kill it now that the CIT and CBI have shown up?

The big schools will vote for the expansion because they know almost all the new at-larges will come from the power conferences. The small schools will vote for it because of the illusion that many of the new bids will go to mid-majors. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I think everyone will end up losing.

My theory on why the Big Dance is currently so successful is not because it's great basketball, or the Cinderella stories, or the brackets being filled out all over the country, or the fact that almost every region of the country has someone to cheer for. It's because of all of that put together. There is something for almost everyone in March Madness, and I don't think any other major sporting event can say that. By expanding the field and forcing most of the mid-majors to play each other(or other power schools) in the first round, the NCAA will be eroding at least one leg of the reasons why some people tune in and fill out brackets. Maybe the impact will be small, or maybe it will be enough to knock the luster off the tourney. Once that's gone, it will be tough to get back.

Just my $0.02.

What he said. Rep points.

[zooropa]

Re: Entitlement and 64

Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I think everyone will end up losing.

I think the 'best case' scenario is that one of two things happen:

Either the first round games get situated at smaller (12k or so) venues (because some of those games ain't gonna draw for crap), allowing cities like Fargo (now) and SF (eventually, maybe) to host games---thus suffusing 'March Madness' further into the landscape--fan interest increases in all the first round games, because some of them are much more accessible than they used to be.

Or, more likely (IMO), the first round games are dull affairs played out in cavernous and empty facilities, ratings are abysmal, ad revenue stinks--and doesn't cover the cost of holding them, and the NCAA goes back to a format that seems to strike a near-perfect balance between being within reach for all schools, while remaining a thoroughly respectable accomplishment to achieve.