Two things here. Beginning in 2011, there will be 68 teams in the field. The other thing is for the TV contract.
The NCAA has awarded the new contract to CBS and Turner Broadcasting:
[font=Verdana][size=13px]Beginning with the 2011 championship, opening- , first- and second-round games will be shown nationally on CBS, TBS, TNT and truTV. CBS and Turner will split coverage of the regional semi-final games. CBS will provide coverage of the regional finals, as well as the Final Four® including the National Championship Game through 2015. Beginning in 2016, coverage of the regional finals will be split by CBS and Turner with the Final Four and the National Championship game alternating every year between the CBS Television Network and Turner’s TBS.[/size][/font]
Funny thing is, of all the Turner channels, I actually get that one. I have the po’ boy cheap guy cable. I still think it’s bad. Mainly because we usually put up the games at work using OTA signal. As for the expansion, I have said all along that if it expands, it shouldn’t be more than 68. And please, stop rewarding schools for being in a BCS conference. If you are going to give a conference an auto-bid, they shouldn’t be in the “opening round game”. I think a true opening round game should include at large bids only. Unless it is shown with substantial evidence that they are the 60-68th worst teams.
It is really a win-win. All the games will be on TV, no free for all 96 game tournament, 4 play-in games, and most importantly no Dick Vitale. I am happy with the move.
I didn’t see it spelled out, but I assume this means 4 play-in games for the 8 lowest seeded teams?
I agree with Chevee, I’d love to see the play-ins be for the last 4 at-large spots, earning them a 12 seed. Would be much more interesting. We’ll still have 1-4 teams complaining just as loudly that they were “the last team out”. I’d also like to see the lowest seeds have at least some chance of finally beating a 1-seed. Forcing them to play and travel just to get in sucks.
The only loss is that we will have the advertisements for lame TBS sitcoms pop up at the bottom of the screen during the games.[/quote]
First Conan and now basketball. TBS wants to be player it seems.[/quote]
If it would have been ESPN/ABC, you’d still have ads for bad TV
I don’t have a problem with 68 teams, ads only 3 at-large bids, which will only be 2 when the Great West gets its auto-bid. Expansion of some sort was inevitable as more teams jump to Division I, but 96 was too many. This will just open up a little bit of breathing room, which I don’t think will hurt the tournament, plus it will allow some teams that would never get the chance to mark down a victory in the tournament.
TBS… wow… it used to be the only thing you’d find on there was Home Improvement and Fresh Prince. Its still hard to imagine a National Championship on TBS
I hope Sen. “bust the BCS Balls” Hatch makes them do at-large for the play-in, not conf. tourney champs, & I don’t even believe in gov’t. interference.
[quote=“stonecoldken, post:12, topic:23136”]I hope Sen. “bust the BCS Balls” Hatch makes them do at-large for the play-in, not conf. tourney champs, & I don’t even believe in gov’t. interference.[/quote]I agree that the play-in games should be among the last 8 at-large teams in the field.
The only loss is that we will have the advertisements for lame TBS sitcoms pop up at the bottom of the screen during the games.[/quote]
CBS sitcoms are worse.
America’s #1 network my ass. …actually, I believe that.
Davidson’s Bob McKillop: "My concern is with diminishing excellence. Our society has done that too much. We have the whole year to play for the tournament spot. You earn it by what you did all year. I’ve been in the position to be incredibly disappointed come Selection Sunday. On two occasions we were undefeated in the conference, but eliminated in the conference tournament. It’s a tough pill to swallow but we had games to win and didn’t and those are the consequences. … I’ve heard about how expansion will help save coaches’ jobs. Ask Dino Gaudio about that. Talk to Sean Kearney or Bobby Lutz. This just creates another threshold. Getting in is no big deal. Now it’s about advancing. … So as far as 68, it’s not 96. That’s the best I can say about it.’’
Better than 96, but the former #14 seeds are the ones getting the screw with this deal. Now they will be #15 seeds playing tougher teams. The former “last 3 in” will wind up taking the higher seeds instead of having to be in the play-in games. Again, though, it’s much better than 96, but I still think the move to 96 will happen sometime soon (i.e. 10 years or less).