Tweet
I had the Score in Chicago on earlier this afternoon, and Boers and Bernstein got on the subject of how the NCAA is probably eventually aiming for four 16 team "superconferences". They thought that would be a good idea in that the NCAA would have their annual 64 team tournament where EVERY team makes it in each year after the regular season is played, and how the conferences would consist of the teams that "people really want to see". They said that if the "smaller" schools wanted to play in their own postseason tournament, then they would have no problem with that, but the four 16 team conferences would solve the problem of dividing tv revenue.
Then Boers (in a tongue-in-cheek manner) asked Bernstein, "what about Wichita St. and S.I.U.?"
Bernstein: "No. How about Bradley in the tournament?"
Boers: "Oh no, no!"
Now setting aside the usual Valley bias by these two, do they not realize that teams like Butler, VCU and Northern Iowa actually play a very good brand of basketball in the tournament, and their inclusion and subsequent tournament runs actually bring higher ratings to the tournament? Apparently not, and they like many in the NCAA hierarchy don't really care, and downright show disdain when teams like this make long runs in the tournament. These types figure that when more "Cinderellas" crash the party and stay for awhile, they cut into the payout that the "Big Boys" receive. Therefore, ratings be "darned". They will actually risk lower ratings as long as the upper echeleon "semi-pro" teams receive their rightful share of their postseason payouts, even at the expense of some great teams like Butler and Gonzaga!
So don't expect things to change anytime soon, even if they accept a "token" smaller team or two (a Butler or Gonzaga type) into a future new configuration of super conferences. But that doesn't mean I or others have to like this, and hearing this every so often only makes me more ticked off everytime I hear this. If the NCAA wants to split Division I into two separate divisions as they did in football, then they should do it ASAP. Otherwise, they should keep their mouths shut and play by the rules. But I don't think that's possible.
Then Boers (in a tongue-in-cheek manner) asked Bernstein, "what about Wichita St. and S.I.U.?"
Bernstein: "No. How about Bradley in the tournament?"
Boers: "Oh no, no!"
Now setting aside the usual Valley bias by these two, do they not realize that teams like Butler, VCU and Northern Iowa actually play a very good brand of basketball in the tournament, and their inclusion and subsequent tournament runs actually bring higher ratings to the tournament? Apparently not, and they like many in the NCAA hierarchy don't really care, and downright show disdain when teams like this make long runs in the tournament. These types figure that when more "Cinderellas" crash the party and stay for awhile, they cut into the payout that the "Big Boys" receive. Therefore, ratings be "darned". They will actually risk lower ratings as long as the upper echeleon "semi-pro" teams receive their rightful share of their postseason payouts, even at the expense of some great teams like Butler and Gonzaga!
So don't expect things to change anytime soon, even if they accept a "token" smaller team or two (a Butler or Gonzaga type) into a future new configuration of super conferences. But that doesn't mean I or others have to like this, and hearing this every so often only makes me more ticked off everytime I hear this. If the NCAA wants to split Division I into two separate divisions as they did in football, then they should do it ASAP. Otherwise, they should keep their mouths shut and play by the rules. But I don't think that's possible.
Comment