If it ain’t broke… still try to squeeze more money out of it
So it seems a fait accompli that the Big Dance is going to 96 teams. I was annoyed when it went to 65, replete with the dumb play-in game, but whatever… what’s one inconsequential game in the grand scheme of things? Not enough to complain about. But 96 teams instead of 64… er, 65? Enough to complain about.
64 teams is perfect - 65 teams is close enough. 96 teams is a joke. In today’s WSJ, it was suggested that they just let everyone in (I think the number is 300-something)… and that they also still crown a champion, but make sure they every other team is still called “winners” - basically suggesting the Big Dance should be (and is) devolving into a third-grade basketball league where everybody is included and nobody’s feelings are hurt. Tongue-in-cheek? Sure, mostly - but how far off-base?
Obviously it’s been done solely for money. I like money, and usually don’t have a problem with others doing their best to make more money (within the standard legal, moral, and ethical means, of course). Course, this is supposed to be *amateur* athletics, of course. I’m not interested in devolving into another debate with Tank regarding the “need” to pay these student-athletes, but I will concede this BS Circus only lends credence to his position.
A couple weeks ago I heard someone wonder out loud (somewhere on ESPN Radio, can’t tell you who, to be honest) which was better - Super Bowl Sunday or March Madness. I believe there are viable arguments on either side of that debate, but myself am left with… Frank. Drebben. You’re *both* right!
Pressed to answer, I’d probably say March Madness is better for one simple reason: Notwithstanding the recent spate of very competitive, and thus ultra-exciting, Super Bowls… March Madness tends to more consistently provide annual drama. Obviously, they have more than one game to draw from, but that is countered by the Super Bowl commercials in my mind (like the Tournament games themselves, we get some great SB commmercials, some decent ones, and some duds). The NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship is not always a *great* game - but seems like more often than not, it is. The Tournament design, though, is nearly perfect (if they’d only get rid of the 65th team, as noted - but again, I won’t quibble with that relatively minor indiscretion). First weekend is almost always filled with some dramatic games, as some lower seeds manage to take out some higher seeds… then we’re left with Sweet Sixteen for weekend two. That generally produces terrific athletic competition and gripping drama… and then we’re left with the Final Four. We’re allowed another week of buildup before those teams play first on Saturday, and then the Championship on Monday Night - giving us a little dose of MNF-ess in the Spring: A reason to look forward to a Monday (as that ESPN promo says, and which is true).
No 16-seed has ever beaten a 1-seed, and as Gonzo noted separately (and I’ll take his word for it), only three 15-seeds have ever beaten 2-seeds - and none of those has advanced to the Sweet Sixteen. We are at the limit of teams for this tourney, in terms of winnability (a word? I dunno - but it is now). Arguably we could lose a few teams, but the 64 is a perfect number (ignoring the 65, yes) - and I *do* like the ability of every conference to send at least one representative, yes. I do *not* need to see the 2nd- (and potentially 3rd-) best Ivy League team, except in an exceptionally rare case where said team(s) are somehow worthy of one of the currently 32 (is it?) at-large bids. I definitely don’t need to see the 7th-, 8th, 9-th, and potentially 10th-best ACC/SEC/Big Ten teams.
I’ve also heard that this will help college basketball coaches keep their jobs longer cuz more will be able to say “we made the Tournament” - but expanding the Tournament’s size will necessarily water down the impact of that statement. And without checking, I’m going to ass-ume that some coaches get fired even after they’ve taken their teams to the NCAA Tournament… sometimes even after taking them multiple times, I’d guess.
We still have the NIT Tournament, for those outside “the top 65″ to have postseason basketball. If “making the tournament” is truly the difference between employment and unemployment for college coaches, then am I to believe that ADs will somehow give more weight to being a 20-seed in the NCAA Tournament vs. being a 4-seed in the NIT Tournament? As SNL’s Seth Myers might wonder, “Really? Really?!”
Finally, as to the money, at least conceptually I wonder if a watered-down tournament will actually lead to lower revenues eventually - when there is more ad space to be sold for ”tournament coverage”, and the demand (or at least willingness to pay top dollar) is necessarily reduced… due to the over-supply. Along those lines, will excitement abate - even a little - with another weekend of tournament games? Maybe not… but maybe so.
I’m not sure that the NCAA, and the ubiquitous “TV execs”, are killing the golden goose - but at the very least, they may be running it a little ragged… if/when the “new and improved 96-team NCAA Tournament” is introduced. And I submit it’s more of a “when” than an “if”.
And that’s too bad.
Okay… I’m done now.
March 15th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
You missed a very key point that is being overlooked by those wanting to expand to 96…. a significant portion of the population fills out a tournament bracket, and thereby follows the games on Thursday and Friday. With 96 teams, there would be fewer participants in bracket style pools, and I believe interest would significantly wane.
I also, don’t think that coaches save their jobs by wrapping up an 11 seed in the tourney… and if they go to 96 teams, do they play over 4 weekends?
March 16th, 2010 at 8:58 am
I absolutely agree that Brackets are a big reason for the huge interest in March Madness. As we hear time and again, the ubiquitous “secretary who hasn’t watched a game until the tournament” ends up winning, i.e. she (or to be politically correct, she or he) *only* watch the Tournament - and only cuz they filled out a Bracket for an office pool. However, I’m not sure a move to 96 would necessarily mean fewer participants. Why would it? So you have to pick more games… would that really deter anyone from filling out a sheet?
I haven’t delved fully into the mindset of the NCAA Cognoscenti who are evaluating this “improvement”, but my guess/understanding is that it would mean an additional weekend of games. The “top 32″ would get byes on the first weekend, and then play would “flow” from there.
As to coaches saving their jobs by getting into the Tourney, I submit it’s far from that simple. If Jim Calhoun or Jim Boeheim or Roy Williams or Bill Self (or include any other name from the “top coaches” list) can do no better than 11-seeds in the tourney, how long are those administrations/fan bases going to allow that? A down year here and there? Okay, it happens. But consistently “subpar” tournament seedings? Uh-huh… bye-bye.
If Cornell or Gonzaga or Toledo can secure the occasional 11-seed? Sure… that coach just bought himself at least another five years at that school, except that he’ll probably get courted by more major programs as a result of the accomplishment.
But to the point of “getting into the Tourney” when there’s 96 teams, do you truly believe that - as I wondered above - getting a 20-seed in the “new and improved” NCAA Tourney is more job-saving than getting a 4-seed in the NIT Tourney? I don’t.
Finally, I actually don’t have the time, but I’ll add it to my “what to do if/when I want to waste a whole lotta time” list… I’d love to look into the past 5, 10, 20 years, actually whenever they first went to 64 teams, and then see how many “tournament coaches” got fired; vs. how many non-tournament coaches got fired; vs. how those numbers compared to when there were only 32 teams getting in, etc. Maybe somebody’s done that analysis already and I’d just have to scoure Al Gore’s Internet to find it… that’s entirely possible.
But I struggle to believe that a coach is safe just cuz he gets into a 96-team tournament. Some guys with at least four names in their college name (IUPUI, UCSB, et al)? Sure. But they would be just as “safe” for getting to the NIT and making some noise there.