Fix College Basketball

This is well tread ground. The major conferences will never do away with their tournaments because they print money.

The mid- and low-majors will never do away with them because it's their chance to get their product on a national television platform. The mids and lows, at least, have really moved to a system to where a great regular season is rewarded. I'm for any league that gives its best two teams a bye to the semifinals and makes the other schools fight it out in the earlier rounds. I'm also for home-court advantages over neutral. I covered the Big South for years, and neutral court tournament games were played in front of a smattering of people. When that conference championship game is on the home court of one of the participants, the atmosphere is bonkers, though.

The conference tournament also allows for a team that had injury problems at one point of the year, for instance, come together to make a run at the end. USC football would approve.

 

The one-and-done thing is working itself out, at least to some degree. Guys like Wiggins, Ingram and Simmons are going to leave early no matter what, but have enough hype coming in that's not really the issue.

But a lot of other players are figuring out they are better off not jumping too early. The past two seasons, most of the top teams have been led by juniors and seniors. If you weren't familiar with Buddy Hield, Kris Dunn, Marcus Paige, Malcolm Brogdon, Perry Ellis, Denzel Valentine and dozens of others last December it was simply because you'd chosen not to pay attention.

 

But you also pretty much know that those guys aren't going to be NBA stars. It's independent league minor league basketball, to an extent. During college basketball's heyday, part of the allure was that the best players in college were very likely to be the best players in the NBA, as well. It didn't always turn out to be the case, but it was certainly more true then than it is now.

 

More about dollars than sense, Buck. The CBS bastard stepchild network(s) want some big name schools in its "first round" games so people will pay attention. If it was eight teams battling for the four 16 seeds, fewer people would watch.

I agree with those who say go back to a true 64-team tourney, but just like the NFL Thursday night games, it's all about the money. And in the case of the NCAA tourney, the players have zero say in the matter.

 

About the same chance as bringing back those manufacturing jobs to the Midwest. Who is going to make college basketball great again?

 

I guess I understand that, but it still bugs the crap out of me.
And it bugs me that it doesn't bug fans.

If you can't get people to watch eight teams play in for the four 16 seeds, it's because you don't need 68.
64 is already a lot of freaking teams. Why do we need more?
I'd be happy if we went back to 32.

On a side note, 68 freaking teams make this tournament, and people still argue about who misses out and who gets seeded where.
What makes anyone think expanding college football playoff to eight or 16 teams is going to 'settle' arguments about who deserves to be in and who doesn't?
College football playoff will eventually lead to what has happened to college basketball - nobody cares about the season.

 

A different take:

https://theringer.com/college-basketball-state-of-the-game-a2b610ddb80e#.gtx1vqfgz

 

You need to get out more. College baseball is quite popular in many areas of the country.

And the fact that college baseball isn't as popular as college basketball does not mean the system the NCAA/MLB have agreed upon is flawed. It provides for every option.

Kids who want to turn pro out of high school do. Those who are non-qualifiers but who still want to wait to go pro, attend JC. Those who attend a four-year school but transfer to a JC after one year are draft-eligible. Those who prefer to wait and get three years of school in before they go pro go to college, often improve their draft prospects, and are at least real student/athletes for three years and do make real progress toward a degree, instead of the college basketball's one-and-dones who leave after six months. And anyone who is 21 within 45 days of the draft is draft-eligible, even if they only have two years of college.

 

Oh, yeah. I'm sure ESPN is itching for college basketball to draw baseball ratings.

You guys crack me up sometimes with your loyalties and blind spots.

 

If shown on regular basis, college baseball and basketball ratings for regular season would be similar. College basketball is not an attraction except for tournament. ESPN needs live programming no matter what, and this is what it's got in the winter. When they get the NHL, watch the amount of college basketball on the network decline.

 

To be fair, the current set up where two of the play-in games are for the 12-seeds seemed to be a response to fans complaining that some of the automatic qualifiers were getting stuck in the play-in games while the mediocre big-boy conference teams got to cruise into the main draw.
Of course it makes more money for the networks, but it was also an effort to give people what they said they wanted.

 

Bullshit.

USC football would get dunked on left and right by Gulf Coast.