CBS/Turner reach deal on NCAA Tournament rights... will expand to 68


#1

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2010/announcements/20100422+cbs+turner+ncaa+rights+agreement+rls


#2

That’s great news. Don’t particularly like four play in games, but way better than the 96 game beast they were proposing.

Could this lead to a 1 losing to a 16 (or 17) now?


#3

[quote=“laoDan, post:2, topic:1127”]That’s great news. Don’t particularly like four play in games, but way better than the 96 game beast they were proposing.

Could this lead to a 1 losing to a 16 (or 17) now?[/quote]

Personally, I think it could help. Before most 16 seeds were off for 10 days or so before meeting the 1 seed. Now they will all be playing a game two games prior. Could help. On the other hand, having 10 days to prepare for a team should have helped also. Who knows. It has never happened before, so if it does now, everyone will think the play-in game helped.


#4
[quote="laoDan, post:2, topic:1127"]That's great news. Don't particularly like four play in games, but way better than the 96 game beast they were proposing.

Could this lead to a 1 losing to a 16 (or 17) now?[/quote]

Personally, I think it could help. Before most 16 seeds were off for 10 days or so before meeting the 1 seed. Now they will all be playing a game two games prior. Could help. On the other hand, having 10 days to prepare for a team should have helped also. Who knows. It has never happened before, so if it does now, everyone will think the play-in game helped.

I was thinking more along the lines of this: three old 15 seeds would be the new 16 seeds, therefore a (slightly) tougher opponent for the 1’s.


#5

Wow, the Final Four will now find its way to TNT.


#6

still don’t like expanding it, but 68 is more palatable than 96…still think that the play in games should be at large teams


#7

Actually TBS (and not until 2016). Seems TBS is really trying to raise its profile with this and Conan.


#8
[quote="laoDan, post:2, topic:1127"]That's great news. Don't particularly like four play in games, but way better than the 96 game beast they were proposing.

Could this lead to a 1 losing to a 16 (or 17) now?[/quote]

Personally, I think it could help. Before most 16 seeds were off for 10 days or so before meeting the 1 seed. Now they will all be playing a game two games prior. Could help. On the other hand, having 10 days to prepare for a team should have helped also. Who knows. It has never happened before, so if it does now, everyone will think the play-in game helped.

I was thinking more along the lines of this: three old 15 seeds would be the new 16 seeds, therefore a (slightly) tougher opponent for the 1’s.

So you are thinking that adding three more teams means three more at-large teams shift the seedings to where teams that used to get 15 seeds would now be 16 seeds. I can see that logic.


#9

That’s not fair to the #1 seeds. At-large teams are typically going to be better than the low-major team that got in by winning its tournament.


#10
[quote="manatree, post:6, topic:1127"]still don't like expanding it, but 68 is more palatable than 96........[b]still think that the play in games should be at large teams[/b][/quote]

That’s not fair to the #1 seeds. At-large teams are typically going to be better than the low-major team that got in by winning its tournament.

Unless two at-larges (ats-large? :)) play for a 12 or 13 seed.


#11
[quote="laoDan, post:2, topic:1127"]That's great news. Don't particularly like four play in games, but way better than the 96 game beast they were proposing.

Could this lead to a 1 losing to a 16 (or 17) now?[/quote]

Personally, I think it could help. Before most 16 seeds were off for 10 days or so before meeting the 1 seed. Now they will all be playing a game two games prior. Could help. On the other hand, having 10 days to prepare for a team should have helped also. Who knows. It has never happened before, so if it does now, everyone will think the play-in game helped.

I was thinking more along the lines of this: three old 15 seeds would be the new 16 seeds, therefore a (slightly) tougher opponent for the 1’s.

Myabe I’m not thinking about this correctly but aren’t we essentially looking at 4 games between 16 and 17 seeds with the winners becoming the 16 seed? Where do you get old 15 seeds would now be the new 16 seeds?


#12
[quote="laoDan, post:2, topic:1127"]That's great news. Don't particularly like four play in games, but way better than the 96 game beast they were proposing.

Could this lead to a 1 losing to a 16 (or 17) now?[/quote]

Personally, I think it could help. Before most 16 seeds were off for 10 days or so before meeting the 1 seed. Now they will all be playing a game two games prior. Could help. On the other hand, having 10 days to prepare for a team should have helped also. Who knows. It has never happened before, so if it does now, everyone will think the play-in game helped.

I was thinking more along the lines of this: three old 15 seeds would be the new 16 seeds, therefore a (slightly) tougher opponent for the 1’s.

Myabe I’m not thinking about this correctly but aren’t we essentially looking at 4 games between 16 and 17 seeds with the winners becoming the 16 seed? Where do you get old 15 seeds would now be the new 16 seeds?

Because the at large teams are way better than 16 seeds and will be seeded as such. 12/13 seeds will be stronger while everybody else basically gets bumped down one.

I’m content with this. Could’ve been a lot worse.


#13

Not real happy about it, but THIS is encouraging if I’m reading it correctly:

The NCAA's new, 14-year agreement with CBS and Atlanta-based Turner Broadcasting System Inc. runs from 2011 through 2024. It means that every game next March will be shown live -- on CBS, TBS, TNT or truTV -- for the first time in the tournament's 73-year history.

Does that mean I won’t have to live in a sportsbar for all of the first and second round!??


#14
[quote="laoDan, post:2, topic:1127"]That's great news. Don't particularly like four play in games, but way better than the 96 game beast they were proposing.

Could this lead to a 1 losing to a 16 (or 17) now?[/quote]

Personally, I think it could help. Before most 16 seeds were off for 10 days or so before meeting the 1 seed. Now they will all be playing a game two games prior. Could help. On the other hand, having 10 days to prepare for a team should have helped also. Who knows. It has never happened before, so if it does now, everyone will think the play-in game helped.

I was thinking more along the lines of this: three old 15 seeds would be the new 16 seeds, therefore a (slightly) tougher opponent for the 1’s.

Myabe I’m not thinking about this correctly but aren’t we essentially looking at 4 games between 16 and 17 seeds with the winners becoming the 16 seed? Where do you get old 15 seeds would now be the new 16 seeds?



Because the at large teams are way better than 16 seeds and will be seeded as such. 12/13 seeds will be stronger while everybody else basically gets bumped down one.

I’m content with this. Could’ve been a lot worse.

That’s my point.


#15

My thoughts exactly.

BTW… If anyone sees David Jones, ask him if this means Penn Stae will find it’s way back into the Phillips 76 tournament this November. :slight_smile:


#16

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:13, topic:1127”]Not real happy about it, but THIS is encouraging if I’m reading it correctly:

Does that mean I won’t have to live in a sportsbar for all of the first and second round!??[/quote]
Thats what I took it at. I think that is what the NCAA really wanted is all the games on TV at the same time. Channel flipping and picture in picture fun.


#17

This agreement does not preclude a 96-team field – or any other number – whenever the 18 presidents see fit to expand. That’s all on the table through the duration of the contract. The 96-team field has been fought off for now. But it’ll be an annual debate among the moneymen.

As for Penn State’s schedule, yet another blunder.


#18

This is great news for Ed! Expansion does not appear to be big enough to warrant getting rid of the NIT! ;D


#19

What now, Dave?


#20

Now if they’d just make the play-in game be a true play-in game, and not a “so much for your automatic bid if you lose” game…