Bracketology
- Thread starter TCUPhish
- Start date
Endless Purple
Full Member
You just don't get it. Sports use math, but they are not about math.
Here are some numbers to look up that might put it in a different perspective. How many movies are there about the dominant team that is favored to win and then does? vs How many movies are there about some underdog team trying to win a championship or player that must overcome adversity? next how much money does each of the two choices of movies bring in?
People like underdogs. They like feel good stories. That brings in money. The only people that care about Alabama winning another title are Alabama fans (A&M fans living vicariously through Alabama), gamblers, and those that just like to root for a winner because they have no self value.
Yes, a discussion of its own. Agree on the OOC issue 95%.
I'm sorry, but that movie thing is a TERRIBLE analogy.
I'm told every December that basically the only reason the Alabamas, Ohio States and Oklahomas make the CFP is because ESPN wants them there. If that's the case, I assume they want them there so they can make more money because any other explanation would make absolutely zero sense. And now you're telling me what really brings in the money is feel good stories and underdogs. Which is it? Because it can't be both.
FWIW, there's a couple pretty good recent examples of this.....when Cinderella story Loyola with their old nun cheerleader played Michigan a few years it was a lowly-rated game, in the bottom 25% of all semi-final games in the past 25 years. Heck, Wisconsin-Kentucky drew almost 10M more viewers in a semi-final just a few years earlier. The George Mason run in 2006 didn't draw many any more eyeballs than any other year, and much fewer than the previous year when UNC-Illinois-Michigan State-Louisville played.
TCUdirtbag
Active Member
K-State about to be on the market for a coach too.
He was a really good coach, but probably time to hang it up.
TCUdirtbag
Active Member
Agree. Generally underrated. Won two regular season titles in a league owned by big brother down the street—big deal. But it’s been a rough past few years. Tough business.
K-State internet fans are pushing for Brad Underwood (played there in the 80s and was a long time assistant under Frank Martin) but I don’t see them being able to afford him unless they make some major changes to their spending. Underwood makes $3.4 at Illinois and has a rumored $10 M buyout. Weber was around $2.8 M and KSU isn’t exactly a big spender in any sport.
Last edited:
Don't know what you meant by that... I'll welcome you, even though we don't always agree. You contribute !!
Endless Purple
Full Member
You just don't understand the point.
I thought we were talking 68 team basketball. Changing the target. Two very different situations. Go to the proposed 12/16 team playoff and you get more chances for the cinderella. That wont make the regular season less important, which is the entire premise of this discussion.
With only 4 teams, your need to have the best teams, not really room for a cinderella as it is still about crowning a champion.
With more teams you can have room for a cinderella type story. But this goes back to my earlier comment - BALANCE. Finding the right balance where the networks can still make money and keep viewers interested but not too short that they leave money on the table. Too long and you do end up with many games that people do not watch and the ratings do not justify. I will trust the TV people can identify this better than you or me. They chose the 68 for now.
It does not lessen the value of the regular season as more people still have a chance, even if minuscule, to win it. Thus more people watch. It does not mean that they all watch the lower games, it means the TV people can still make some money on them. You do not need to have the same rating on a first round game as you do the championship game to make it worthwhile. If others do not want to watch, they can just wait to watch starting in the second round. If having the first round makes it impossible for someone to watch the second and later rounds, that sounds more like a personal problem with that person.
You will not increase the viewers by removing the first round or two. Adding more rounds may add a very few more viewers but that amount does not justify the cost - Balance.
CountryFrog
Active Member
Jeez we're still debating this? Should the pros and cons of pizza also be discussed? Then maybe we can debate whether or not sex actually feels good.
FrogBall09
Active Member
if football could play a 64 team tournament in a month - we would have an expanded playoff already because it would not be such a monumental task to orchestrate. But since football is one game and week and takes a huge toll on the players - we will never have an expanded playoff, probably never even go to 8, simply because college players are not going to want to play 16 games to win a championship
Gary's Shirtless Revenge
Full Member
I’d be very surprised if Underwood wanted that job
Even if he is an alum, I can not imagine underwood would leave Illinois for ksu. Illinois is a great college basketball job and he is doing great there. Heck, he just won the big 10 regular season championship. In all honesty, there are probably only 10-15 jobs that are better than Illinois.
TCUdirtbag
Active Member
Completely agree. Like we did with Dixon when Johnson got hired, your AD has to go after your alum and see if there’s any interest (and if so whether you can scratch up the money). Underwood is going to lose a lot of pieces this off season so he might tell his agent to at least listen. But Illinois is easily a better job than k-state, and I doubt he will engage in talks before k-state needs to make a hire if they’re going to poach a hot mid-major.
I honestly don't think this will be a factor at all in any coach's decisions going forward. Every team is subject to lose a lot of pieces, every year. It's a year-to-year deal now.
TCUdirtbag
Active Member
Good point.
