NC***yawn***AA tourny

[tornado]

Quote:

Of all the at large teams this year, only two (UAB and St. Joe's) were mid-majors....


..

sorry....what I meant to say was of the bubble teams that got bids, only 2 were mid-majors...
and if you don't believe there is an anti-mid attitude among the elite in the NCAA and in the media, then you are entitled to your opinion,
but......please allow us to have our opinion which appears to be self-evident, that such a bias clearly exists.

[tornado]

You all MISSED the point of my original message. I did say 'with few exceptions' that this tournament has been boring...
I didnt say that the final 4 will be boring.

Only one of the elite 8 games was decided by less than 10 and only two were even competive. Average margin of victory, 12.5 including the 2 point Kansas win.

Only one of the sweet 16 games was decided by less than 10 points. The average margin of victory was 15.5.

This means that really only 2 of the 12 games went down to the final few minutes with the game in doubt. The big picture, not very exciting.

OK...if "we have a DREAM FINAL FOUR", "a once in a lifetime matchup of the top four seeds in the Finals", and
"everyone wants to see the best teams advance"
...then why are we seeing all the headlines that I have BOLDED IN RED????????????


I also have read the opinions that the ratings are down because some of the games have been blowouts.............but........
Here's why I think this logic is faulty and cannot explain the huge, 10% drop in ratings....

--first, there are blowouts in the first couple rounds every single year, and I have seen nothing to suggest that the blowouts
were any different this year than last year, so why are far fewer people watching this year's blowouts than last year's blowouts?

--second..in order to even know that a game is a blowout, you have to tune in and watch it at least for most of the game,
and the ratings would still note these people watching!!
So finding a game to be a blowout really wouldn't affect the ratings of that game at all, and it wouldn't affect the next game
since those teams in the next round would be two teams who each won in a blowout, and now are evenly matched with each other.

NOPE... I still hold to the opinion, that the NCAA shot itself in its own foot....
They left out the teams from the heartland and declined to give the bids to some teams and matched up others in mid-vs-mid
early round matches that guaranteed losses for some of the teams that (like Xavier and Davidson) would have given them the
better games and higher ratings, and they sacrificed some of the better mids by letting them get slaughtered as horribly low seeds."

Now that TWO whole weeks of NCAA games are done....here is the verdict.....

Ratings are way down...............
"CBS Needs a Big Final Four to Avoid Lowest NCAA Tournament Ratings Ever"

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/03/31/cbs-needs-a-big-final-four-to-avoid-lowest-ncaa-tournament-ratin/

"With the exception of any game Stephen Curry plays in, this has been a fairly boring NCAA Tournament,
lacking in Cinderellas and buzzer beaters and the other things that make March Madness great."

"NCAA tourney: Wake me when it’s over"

http://outsports.com/jocktalkblog/?p=759

" Kansas' 59-57 victory over Davidson in the Midwest Regional final Sunday topped the week with a 15.1 rating..."

http://newsok.com/article/3223580/1207052203

"March 31, 2008

ABC won its sixth Sunday in a row...
CBS was second, boosted by a half hour of NCAA overrun..."
(so only the last few minutes of the KU-Davidson game was the only thing that was the
least bit successful for CBS, otherwise, their whole programming night flopped)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ic39ffb939b8a580feda110cb16361b21

I am not saying that the NCAA should use ratings as their primary motivation....just saying that if they fiddle arbitrarily with
handing out bids and seeding teams in order to get viewers, then they are shooting themselves in the foot.
I AM SURE CBS wants to avoid ratings collapses, but that's exactly what they are giving themselves with thier arbitrary choices.

[TheAsianSensation]

I can't believe people want to pin the ratings problem to the mid-major problem.

Good grief.

The reason the ratings were down were because of blowouts. Less close finishes. It doesn't matter who's involved.


p.s. The seedings? Please. NOT manipulated for ratings. There's not enough time for that.

[tornado]

yes......Master Jones, I will believe as you want me to....give me the Koolaid to drink...
If you choose to believe revenue and ratings are irrelevant to the NCAA or to CBS, then it is clear
we will never have a reasonable debate.
And as I said, show me the reason far fewer people watched this year's blowouts than last year's blowouts,
since just having blowouts can't possibly explain it.............blowouts happen in the first two rounds every single year
and the ratings were way down in every round so far except the games Davidson played...read the links.

[Braves4Life]

Everyone wants to see a quality "David" battle a "Goliath" -- like Davidson/KU. I have enjoyed the tornament this year but agree that the pairings lacked these kind of games. Hence, the lack of ratings that Tornado suggests.

[J Money]

Who cares? The best four teams in the country are in the Final Four. No one can argue that these four teams deserve to be there. Just because a cinderella didn't complete a run doesn't mean anything. These were the best teams. They beat everyone else. End of story.

[Braves4Life]

Who cares? The best four teams in the country are in the Final Four. No one can argue that these four teams deserve to be there. Just because a cinderella didn't complete a run doesn't mean anything. These were the best teams. They beat everyone else. End of story.

Well, based on the ratings and over 250 views here apparently quite a few people care and would prefer to see more of these match-ups. I agree, in the end "it is what it is" and the 4 best teams are where they should be -- in The Final 4. But, I think most people would prefer to watch games with a little more intrigue.

[J Money]

Well, based on the ratings and over 250 views here apparently quite a few people care and would prefer to see more of these match-ups. I agree, in the end "it is what it is" and the 4 best teams are where they should be -- in The Final 4. But, I think most people would prefer to watch games with a little more intrigue.

So now we're coming full circle. We've called into question the bias against the mid-majors leads to them drawing poor seeds and being early exits. Now we're saying that since games with mid-majors draw more intrigue the seeding should be skewed the other way. That makes a lot of sense. If these are the four best teams in the country then it doesn't matter what people want to see they deserve to be there. They beat everyone.

[pfunk880]

sorry....what I meant to say was of the bubble teams that got bids, only 2 were mid-majors...
and if you don't believe there is an anti-mid attitude among the elite in the NCAA and in the media, then you are entitled to your opinion,
but......please allow us to have our opinion which appears to be self-evident, that such a bias clearly exists.

First of all, tell me where I said ANYTHING in my post about whether I feel there is an "anti-mid" attitude. All I stated were the FACTS, and you still don't have your story straight because UAB remains nowhere to be found in my bracket. I'm going to go ahead and assume you mean South Alabama.

I do think there is some bias towards the major conference, but this year I only saw it in the seedings (Butler got screwed big time and the amount of mid vs. mid matchups was ridiculous). If you wanted to make an argument about selection, the last two years with Missouri St. are examples to point to, but I just don't see it this year.

On the mid-major side, USA and St. Joe's got in. I'd say Dayton, ISU, and maybe VCU are the mids I would consider bubble teams left out. Two in, three out. Seems reasonable to me. The ones left out had major flaws in their resumes, and the two that got in didn't look particularly good in first-round exits.

For the majors, I'd say the bubble teams in were Villanova, Kentucky, and Arizona. Ohio State, Arizona State, and Virginia Tech are probably the only three left out you could make any kind of case for. Three in, three out. Again, seems reasonable. 'Nova clearly justified their selection, and Kentucky and Arizona also took their opponents to the wire, more than USA or St. Joe's can say.

Yup, looks biased to me. Don't facts suck?

[tornado]

and then don't let the facts that I have been presenting in the other thread get in the way about how the refs being hired appear to have a suspicious "regional" bias....ahem....

[pfunk880]

and then don't let the facts that I have been presenting in the other thread get in the way about how the refs being hired appear to have a suspicious "regional" bias....ahem....

Way to not respond to my post at all.

[TheAsianSensation]

Some of you seem to be missing a fundamental idea:

The idea of this tournament is not necessarily to make the most money.

THE POINT OF IT IS TO DETERMINE A NATIONAL CHAMPION. Decisions about the tournament and the field should be made with this in mind. Not what's best for the ratings. And if we the fans don't like it, too bad. The national championship isn't a popularity contest.

Now, as far as mid majors getting their fair shot at the title....that's another story

[Braves4Life]

First of all, tell me where I said ANYTHING in my post about whether I feel there is an "anti-mid" attitude. All I stated were the FACTS, and you still don't have your story straight because UAB remains nowhere to be found in my bracket. I'm going to go ahead and assume you mean South Alabama.

I do think there is some bias towards the major conference, but this year I only saw it in the seedings (Butler got screwed big time and the amount of mid vs. mid matchups was ridiculous). If you wanted to make an argument about selection, the last two years with Missouri St. are examples to point to, but I just don't see it this year.

On the mid-major side, USA and St. Joe's got in. I'd say Dayton, ISU, and maybe VCU are the mids I would consider bubble teams left out. Two in, three out. Seems reasonable to me. The ones left out had major flaws in their resumes, and the two that got in didn't look particularly good in first-round exits.

For the majors, I'd say the bubble teams in were Villanova, Kentucky, and Arizona. Ohio State, Arizona State, and Virginia Tech are probably the only three left out you could make any kind of case for. Three in, three out. Again, seems reasonable. 'Nova clearly justified their selection, and Kentucky and Arizona also took their opponents to the wire, more than USA or St. Joe's can say.

Yup, looks biased to me. Don't facts suck?

Pfunk let me be the first to say that this is about the best analysis of the selections that I have seen yet. I agree with every example you gave.....If I were to pick a mid that should have been in it was VCU (won their conference I believe). My major that got screwed was ASU (only because Arizona was chsen ahead of them, though I'm not sure either ASU or Arizona should have been in).

[BradleyBrave]

Some of you seem to be missing a fundamental idea:

The idea of this tournament is not necessarily to make the most money.

THE POINT OF IT IS TO DETERMINE A NATIONAL CHAMPION. Decisions about the tournament and the field should be made with this in mind. Not what's best for the ratings. And if we the fans don't like it, too bad. The national championship isn't a popularity contest.

Now, as far as mid majors getting their fair shot at the title....that's another story

Wrong. Perhaps when the NCAA Tournament first began way back when that was the goal. The NCAA's only motivator nowadays is cold, hard cash. One needs to look no further than the current system in crowning a football champion to clearly see this.

[pfunk880]

Pfunk let me be the first to say that this is about the best analysis of the selections that I have seen yet. I agree with every example you gave.....If I were to pick a mid that should have been in it was VCU (won their conference I believe). My major that got screwed was ASU (only because Arizona was chsen ahead of them, though I'm not sure either ASU or Arizona should have been in).

Thanks.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with you on VCU and Arizona. I actually don't think Arizona or ASU should have in and might have put VCU there.

Still waiting to hear a real response from Tornado, rather than a referral to more inaccurate facts in a different thread...