|
View Poll Results: Should NCAA Expand Tournament to 96 Teams? | |||
Yes | 7 | 6.19% | |
No | 106 | 93.81% | |
Voters: 113. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
03-19-2010, 09:00 AM | #51 | ||
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Location, Location, Location
|
1) Get rid of the play-in game. Keep the NCAA with field of 64 in March.
2) Make the NIT a truly national tournament by starting it the last weekend in November with 256 teams. 512 would work, but I don't see where all of them would come from. 3) That first weekend in November cuts the field to 128. The next NIT round is Christmas week. These would be morphs of the Christmas tournaments that currently exist. The first round winners form groups of four, all of whom go to Hawaii or PR or Disney World, for example, and play two games and now you're down to 32 teams. 4) The next NIT round is MLK weekend in mid-January. Eight groups of four teams at convention cities and now you are down to eight teams. 5) The next round is President's Day weekend in February. Eight teams go to one site and play two games each to get down to the final two, who either: a) play the final right there b) Meet the last weekend of Feb, or first of March, depending on the school's preference. This can be a campus game. When the NIT ends, the NCAA starts. Teams that unexpectedly do well in the NIT get a boost in NCAA value and the NIT would hopefully knock out the made-for-ESPN 'bracket buster' games that are so lame.
__________________
"The case of Great Britain is the most astonishing in this matter of inequality of rights in world soccer championships. The way they explained it to me as a child, God is one but He's three: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I could never understand it. And I still don't understand why Great Britain is one but she's four....while [others] continue to be no more than one despite the diverse nationalities that make them up." Eduardo Galeano, SOCCER IN SUN AND SHADOW |
||
03-19-2010, 09:02 AM | #52 |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
To me what's fun about the tournament is the first weekend when it seems like anything is possible. I see expansion adding two more days of that. But I think there are some misconceptions.
The teams added to the field would not be "worse" than the 15 or 16 seeds we have now, as some people seem to assume. Resume-wise, those auto bid teams from tiny leagues would still be the worst and we'd see a bunch of top 50-100 rpi teams added to the field that otherwise would've been left on the bubble. The distinction to be made here is that it's not like Kansas is going to play a 32 seed now or something. The level of competition when we got to the field of 64 would actually likely be slightly stronger than it is now, based on the notion that the best of those bottom 32 would advance and some of the sub-.500 teams that got on a roll and won their conference tournaments would get eliminated. So let's assume that what this adds is 32 games on Tuesday and Wednesday with the normal 64 tournament kicking off on Thursday and Friday as usual. We're essentially talking about play-in games for all of the seeds from 9 on down and the top 8 seeds getting a bye. So we might see Louisville (rpi 37) take on Lehigh (rpi 151) for the right to play an 8-seed in the round of 64. A team that missed out, Rhode Island (rpi 40), could take on Minnesota (rpi 62), one of the last handful to earn at large bids, to prove who deserves the 11th seed on the court, etc. So just to illustrate my point, here are the RPI ratings of the 14-16 seeds: 14 - Ohio (93) 14 - Sam Houston State (70) 14 - Montana (97) 14 - Oakland (52) 15 - Robert Morris (129) 15 - North Texas (104) 15 - Morgan State (103) 15 - UC Santa Barbara (95) 16 - Lehigh (151) 16 - E. Tenn. St. (122) 16 - Arkansas Pine-Bluff (181) 16 - Vermont (118) And the top 12 teams left out, which would now get a chance to play their way into the field of 64: Rhode Island (40) Wichita State (43) UAB (45) Kent State (46) Memphis (53) Miss. St. (54) Dayton (55) William & Mary (58) Virginia Tech (59) Seton Hall (60) Ole Miss (61) Arizona State (63) |
03-19-2010, 09:05 AM | #53 | ||
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Quote:
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
||
03-19-2010, 09:14 AM | #54 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
You realize of course that this scheme loses money for most of the people stuck with hosting these matchups not of their own choosing right? And that a host of first round matchups with dozens of blowouts (as #1 meets #256) has virtually no TV appeal so it can't even generate much revenue to help cover the costs (notice how relatively few of the holiday tournaments get any TV already?) And we haven't even touched on what this does to both the regular season scheduling for every team involved (since they do not know how many games they'll have in this hypothetical tournament) and how it disrupts conference play. In short, this is just silly.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
03-19-2010, 09:15 AM | #55 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
At most only 1-2 of which had any business being anywhere near the NCAA tournament. Not exactly a selling point there chief.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
03-19-2010, 09:19 AM | #56 | ||
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Quote:
Playing Devil's Advocate here (because I find timmy's argument interesting and because I just like talking about this stuff) - in theory this setup gives you the 64 best teams and the auto-qualifiers. Rather than what you have now - which is around the 50 or so best team, and then the auto-qualifiers. you essentially wipe-out the auto-qualifiers with mid-seed teams, potentially making for more compelling matchups at 64 teams. I'll be honest, I never fully thought out how this would work. Pretty much thought of it as a 1 going vs. a really low seed. Timmy's argument, imo, has some interesting merit. I still would prefer keeping it at 65, but...
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
||
03-19-2010, 09:21 AM | #57 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Conyers GA
|
Quote:
I came into the thread to post this thought as well. Why is there only one play-in game? And why in the world did Kansas (the overall #1 seed) not play the winner of the play-in game instead of Duke? Since in theory the play in teams are #64 and #65 in the bracket, they should have played the overall #1. But beyond that, they should just make it even and symmetrical by adding 3 more play in games. It just makes sense to use baby steps for expansion, and this is the logical way to do it. |
|
03-19-2010, 09:22 AM | #58 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
Then do that, I won't complain. But not at the expense of an additional round of games for so-so teams.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
03-19-2010, 09:25 AM | #59 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wisconsin
|
No. I'm against it because
1. I like it the way it is 2. It is just about money. I won't buy the whole competitive angle if the NCAA dishes it out because they care about better competition in the basketball tournament and not football? No.. its just about money. If anything, I'd rather have them be more up front about what teams might need to do to make the tournament. Be up front. Just say - Ok Mississippi State, you need to win out to get in or have Minnesota lose by the 2nd round of their tournament. And do away with this 64/65 play-in bullshit matchup. It is the equivalent of having two 5 year olds arm wrestle at the small table setup at Thanksgiving to determine who can sit at the big table with the adults.
__________________
You, you will regret what you have done this day. I will make you regret ever being born. Your going to wish you never left your mothers womb, where it was warm and safe... and wet. i am going to show you pain you never knew existed, you are going to see a whole new spectrum of pain, like a Rainboooow. But! This rainbow is not just like any other rainbow, its... |
03-19-2010, 09:28 AM | #60 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
That took a little digging to find but apparently the play-in winner is assigned to face the highest seeded team scheduled to play on Friday, which therefore eliminated Kansas & Kentucky as possible opponents for #65.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
03-19-2010, 09:29 AM | #61 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
|
But I don't want to see teams that had a chance to prove they belonged and didn't during the regular season have another shot to get in. The Ohios, ETSUs, and Robert Morrises of the world deserve their shot.
|
03-19-2010, 09:34 AM | #62 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Big Ten Country
|
Quote:
Is there some reason that Kansas and Kentucky couldn't have played on Friday? |
|
03-19-2010, 09:45 AM | #63 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Quote:
Yes, that was the reason Duke got to play the play-in winner. KU was the #1 seed overall and got to play in the Midwest as a reward. The #1 seed in the Midwest was scheduled to play on Thursday/Saturday. |
|
03-19-2010, 09:47 AM | #64 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
Hmm ... the dates for each host site are pre-determined months in advance (see this link from August that includes dates) Kansas played in Oklahoma City, the most geographical location for them (closest Friday to them looks like Milwaukee), so I suppose that eliminated them from a Friday game. As for Kentucky, I could see where Jacksonville (Fri) would have made as much sense as New Orleans (Thu) but NO doesn't make as much sense for Duke as Jax does, so I imagine either that or some rule I can't find about having the 1 & 2 overall play on the same day dictated Kentucky's eventual placement.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
03-19-2010, 09:56 AM | #65 | ||
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Quote:
I understand your point, but... I personally think the auto-bids are part of the charm in the tourney - so I'd hate to see them go away. If you eliminate the autobids and it becomes even MORE heavily dominated by high-majors, I think you lose a lot of your audience. That's the thing. I feel like the 96 teams thing is a "fixing what ain't broke" situation. If they do it, I hope it fails miserably from a financial perspective.
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
Last edited by wade moore : 03-19-2010 at 09:56 AM. |
||
03-19-2010, 10:00 AM | #66 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
|
Quote:
Results don't seem to agree with you. If you put any weight into the RPI system at all, you have to acknowledge that just about every one of these teams that "shouldn't be anywhere near the NCAA tournament" is a much better team than, oh, say, Murray State, Sam Houston State, Lehigh, Robert Morris, Ohio or Montana. And I don't think anyone sane could say those five teams don't belong in some form after the games they played yesterday. So I would say he actually has a pretty good selling point there. All that said, I still believe the tournament shouldn't be expanded beyond perhaps a field of 68.
__________________
. . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready. Last edited by Chief Rum : 03-19-2010 at 10:05 AM. Reason: Added Ohio to list of low RPI teams |
|
03-19-2010, 10:02 AM | #67 | |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
Quote:
This basically turns the tournament into a BCS conference tourney with a few stragglers from the Horizon, Moutain West, WAC, and WCC. What makes the tournament so awesome is days like yesterday, go to 96 and we don't have those. It also makes the regular season and conference tournaments meaningless. There was a ton of energy in Seattle for the PAC 10 title game because of what was at stake, FFS I was at Hard Rock Cafe and they had the game on their TV's instead of the usual music videos. Go to 96 teams and none of that matters. |
|
03-19-2010, 10:04 AM | #68 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
|
Quote:
Just devil's advocate here, but why exactly? Because they formed a weaker conference with other equally small schools in a relatively approximately similar geographical location?
__________________
. . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready. |
|
03-19-2010, 10:08 AM | #69 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
|
Quote:
This year's tourney title game was the exception. Usually the league is much stronger, and the only thing the title game might affect is the seeding of the two teams involved. This year, because of the unusual weakness of the Pac 10 this season, there was a distinct possibility that the loser (especially if it had been Washington) would not even make it into the tourney. And that's a lot more like smaller conferences, which probably have more exciting (if on a smaller scale) tourneys as a result.
__________________
. . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready. |
|
03-19-2010, 10:09 AM | #70 | |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
Quote:
They are all D1 schools and all should be treated equally. We obviously know that can only happen in a vacuum but the people making these decisions should think that way. |
|
03-19-2010, 10:12 AM | #71 | |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
Quote:
I agree, but I think it is a good example. Obviously the PAC 10 usualy gets way more bids, but even in CAA W&M would have been in for sure, or the SEC title game, or even the ACC game, or Virgina Tech losing in round 1 was no biggie, etc... |
|
03-19-2010, 10:25 AM | #72 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
Quote:
I disagree. If Ohio can knock off Georgetown and Murray State can beat Vandy, either could beat Illinois in a play-in game. There'd be an extra two days of upsets and buzzer beaters that would essentially take the place of the NIT. In a year like this we might see a bunch of small conference schools pick up signature wins over name programs that are a little down like Louisville, Wake Forest, Memphis, UConn or even UNC if they made the cut. |
|
03-19-2010, 10:27 AM | #73 | |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
Quote:
Nobody cares if Murray state beats Louisville on a Wednesday night play in game. |
|
03-19-2010, 10:29 AM | #74 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
Quote:
Murray State could then go on to beat Vandy. My point was that it's silly to suggest that it eliminates the small conference schools. If they can pull upsets against top seeds, clearly they can pull upsets against bubble teams. Last edited by timmynausea : 03-19-2010 at 10:30 AM. |
|
03-19-2010, 10:32 AM | #75 | |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
Quote:
Two upsets in a row, how often does that really happen? This whole argument is like an argument to improve bacon, it's perfect, why mess with it. |
|
03-19-2010, 10:33 AM | #76 |
Dark Cloud
Join Date: Apr 2001
|
|
03-19-2010, 10:39 AM | #77 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
Quote:
A 1-16 game of Duke vs. UConn might be worth watching. Edit: And reading further down, another 1-16 of Kansas-UNC could be good, too. Last edited by timmynausea : 03-19-2010 at 10:40 AM. |
|
03-19-2010, 10:39 AM | #78 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
Quote:
Does anyone watch the current play in game? If not then why would people be interested in watching like five more of them? I honestly don't want to see Illinois play Rhode Island if it's solely for getting into the tournament. I know there will be some people, but I can't believe it's enough to warrant adding more games to a tournament that certainly isn't broken. |
|
03-19-2010, 10:40 AM | #79 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
|
Quote:
But they're not treated equally. Much weaker teams from weaker conferences can win an autoamtic bid while teams much better than they are are left home. And conference construction is somewhat arbitrary and/or more specifically tied to non-basketball reasons. It was put up that these weaker teams deserve their spots, whereas much stronger teams in bigger conferences don't. Since the reason those spots exist is because of something as unrelated to basketball quality as conference construction, I think it's legit to question a statement that says those weaker conference teams "deserve" their spots. I am having trouble agreeing that the arbitrary construction of conferences is the determining factor in "deserve" here.
__________________
. . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready. |
|
03-19-2010, 10:46 AM | #80 | |||||
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
Quote:
This is dreadful Quote:
Cornell gets punished with a play in game? Va Tech, beat the worst team in your league in the conference tourny, Seton Hall is a mess and was a no show in the NIT. Quote:
PAC 10 champs have a play in game? A bunch of mid majors who didn't win their conference tournaments? The 3rd place finisher in Conference USA? Quote:
A UCONN team with no buisness being in post season play? Arizona St who couldn't beat Stanford when it mattered then lost to Jacksonville? Stony Brook? Weber State? Are they realy at large teams? Quote:
Tulsa, the 5th team in Conference USA? ODU gets punished with a play in game? TBH these games look terrible and would completely water down the product. All I would be thinking would be can we get to Thursday already. |
|||||
03-19-2010, 10:49 AM | #81 |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
dola- I would also mention with this proposal it completely removes accountability for teams with regards to regular season performance.
UCONN, Arizona St, Illinois, Seton Hall, Rhode Island, etc... would all be in despite dreadful performances at times |
03-19-2010, 10:58 AM | #82 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
Quote:
But the truth is that the amount of time from Selection Sunday to Thursday would still be the same, and the product, starting on Thursday, would still be identical. If anything, you can make a pretty good case that it'd be a slightly better product (starting on Thursday) as the field of 64 could be slightly improved by the play-in process. Aside from that, it's two days of basketball. |
|
03-19-2010, 11:01 AM | #83 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
|
Lathum, potato, potAto. I see value in those games. They would interest me. I don't think they completely devalue the regular season or the conference tournaments. I would enjoy another day of exciting tournament basketball, like an extended first weekend.
Just because you're of these opinions, doesn't mean they're facts. You may not watch them. But others probably will. My guess is, before the tourney was expanded the last time, people made similar arguments about games we consider key and important now, like 5 vs 12 or 6 vs 11; etc. FTR, I like the tourney as is, and I am for it staying as it is now, or maybe just adding three more play in games to even out the one seed doormat opponents. That said, all of your arguments I have seen really come down to your opinion. Not everyone's going to agree with that.
__________________
. . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready. |
03-19-2010, 11:07 AM | #84 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
FWIW - I don't think that mid-major and low-major conference auto-bids "deserve" to be there, I just think it's plain more fun with those teams there.
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
03-19-2010, 11:08 AM | #85 | |
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Also - one minor point of annoyance.
In a 96 team setup, you don't have play-in games. You have 32 teams with byes.
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
|
03-19-2010, 11:09 AM | #86 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Conyers GA
|
But the lower seeded teams that had to play on Tuesday or Wednesday would have a lesser shot of beating a rested team that had a bye. I think you'd get fewer upsets of favored teams on Thursday and Friday because of this. Which would suck. That's the whole beauty of the tournament.
|
03-19-2010, 11:11 AM | #87 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
|
Quote:
The top 4 teams in the Big East tournament had a double bye. Only one of the top 4 teams won in their first game. |
|
03-19-2010, 11:15 AM | #88 |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
I agree it is all opinion CR. It wasn't my intention to pass it off as fact.
|
03-19-2010, 11:36 AM | #89 |
High School Varsity
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: St. Pete, FL
|
No!
The beauty of the tourney is the first 2 days. Catching a big team not ready for the mid major or small auto qualifier. Change this and now you are sending Ohio to play on Tuesday and win to get the chance to play Georgetown on Thursday. Robert Morris wins and is now tired and they don't take Villanova to OT. Now all the big teams get easier first round wins, and more get to say they make the tourney. Last edited by Mike1409 : 03-19-2010 at 11:38 AM. |
03-19-2010, 11:51 AM | #90 |
Bounty Hunter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
I think the overall excitement of yesterday's games is really prettying up the idea of an expanded tournament. Not every game is going to end up like Murray State-Vanderbilt. Drop 32 more teams into it and you'll likely end up with a bunch of Kentucky-ETSU games that nobody gives half a crap about. It's all speculation, obviously, but there would be years with mostly good games and years with mostly bad games. Personally, I don't think it's worth it to throw 32 more teams in there on the chance that a few early-round games will be dramatic.
If you want to see 32 more teams, exactly which 32 teams are you trying to add? Mid-majors? Minor conference teams? Or the big boys who couldn't even finish .500 in their conference? We're not far off from a power conference putting 9 or 10 teams into the tournament. I'm sure some could argue that that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it just starts getting silly to me.
__________________
No, I am not Batman, and I will not repair your food processor. |
03-19-2010, 12:16 PM | #91 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Maybe they should get rid of the tournament and institute bowl games.
|
03-19-2010, 12:43 PM | #92 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
|
Quote:
Yeah, I think I came on too strong there. It was probably in response to the certainty of your argument, which is certainly not a flaw. No, I was just pointing out that, while it may not work for you and for others who are of your opinion, the question is, does it work for enough people for such an arrangement to make th NCAAs a good chunk more cash, and where not everyone would consider those early games a joke or a devaluation of the regular season or the tourney. And my guess is that there will be enough fans of it to make it work.
__________________
. . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready. |
|
03-19-2010, 12:47 PM | #93 |
Bounty Hunter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
At least in that case, East Tennessee State might be matched up against someone they could actually beat.
__________________
No, I am not Batman, and I will not repair your food processor. |
03-19-2010, 12:49 PM | #94 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hartford
|
I can't believe that there are 7 yes votes.
|
03-19-2010, 12:54 PM | #95 |
H.S. Freshman Team
Join Date: Nov 2004
|
I don't think they should expand the tourney. They should get rid of the play in game.
But, most importantly, they should standardize the criteria for awarding at large bids, whether it be RPI, conference record, strength of schedule, color of uniforms or whatever, standardize and publish it. Last year, SOS and # of games won in your conference tourney weren't as important as overall record and conference record. Next year, who knows what the committee is going to think is important. I also think that the committee members should not be affiliated in an official capacity with any schools or conferences to completely eliminate any possible appearance of impropriety (not saying there actually is any). Of course all these things put Lunardi and Dobbs out of job, so I don't expect it to happen. |
03-19-2010, 12:57 PM | #96 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
The two things aren't mutually exclusive. Case in point might well be the minor bowl games, which I watch at about the same frequency as the average BCS bowl but will still acknowledge the lax nature of the matchup itself. We watch because we're bored, or because it's on, or because it beats the alternatives, not because we're overly compelled by it. The same seems likely to occur with a watered down NCAA tournament, we'll still watch in similar numbers for at least the main rounds (I suspect this arrangement will actually drive down ratings a bit for the R64 as well) we just won't see the same passion about it.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
03-19-2010, 12:59 PM | #97 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
So essentially take the human element out of it entirely? Gosh, almost sounds like the BCS rankings.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
03-19-2010, 05:49 PM | #98 | ||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
03-19-2010, 05:51 PM | #99 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Quote:
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|