Comments on: If it ain’t broke… still try to squeeze more money out of it http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/if-it-aint-broke-still-try-to-squeez-more-money-out-of-it/ People don't think it be like it is, but it do. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:22:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: Cliffy http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/if-it-aint-broke-still-try-to-squeez-more-money-out-of-it/#comment-1914 Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:58:47 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/if-it-aint-broke-still-try-to-squeez-more-money-out-of-it/#comment-1914 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. 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.

]]> by: shtiny http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/if-it-aint-broke-still-try-to-squeez-more-money-out-of-it/#comment-1911 Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:26:10 +0000 http://www.oscargamblesociety.com/if-it-aint-broke-still-try-to-squeez-more-money-out-of-it/#comment-1911 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? 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?

]]>