Moving college hoops season won't fix what's broken

[ORUTerry]

Interesting article that discusses the Pac-12 Commissioner's proposal to move the NCAA basketball season back one month so that it is a 'one semester' sport.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball-news/4658423-college-basketball-season-start-schedule-larry-scott-pac-1

Here is the Bleacher Report article that actually discusses the proposal:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2579191-ncaa-considering-moving-back-college-basketball-season-1-month?utm_campaign=tsiphone&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=teamstream#articles/2579191-ncaa-considering-moving-back-college-basketball-season-1-month

Edited October 19, 2015 by ORUTerry

[Bad Blood]

There's no need to re-hash the points the author made, but it would be stupid, maybe even suicidal, for college basketball to give up its near-monopoly in March. The point he made about the lack of important on-campus games in November and December is also well-stated and needs no further support.

I would add two points. First, In addition to the lack of compelling matchups in the first two months, people tune out the college basketball regular season because it just doesn't really matter enough. At the major conference level, every team that is remotely capable of winning the NCAA Tournament has already assured themselves of a berth by mid-February (and is safe well before then). In a 64 or 68-team field, the truly elite teams have no trouble qualifying for the postseason. Plus, the teams fighting for "bubble" spots aren't contenders to win the entire tournament.

Even home-field advantage, the carrot that most sports dangle in front of fans to keep them interested in regular season games after the good teams have clinched, doesn't really matter in college basketball. Games are played at neutral sites. Even getting a top seed doesn't assure you of playing games close to home. Even playing close to home doesn't ensure an advantage.

At the level of one-bid leagues, the regular season barely matters at all, because all teams get thrown into a tournament for the league's automatic bid. Typically the tournament is held at a pre-determined site. A few leagues like the Southland do a nice job with the bye system, but for the most part you arrive at the tournament with a clean slate. The last three months did not matter.

tl;dr - College basketball's regular season doesn't mean enough

Second - That change would create havoc within most athletic departments, which are built to transition from one major sport in the fall (football) to one major sport in the winter (basketball) to one major sport in the spring (baseball).

[ORUJason]

The regular season does matter greatly for seeding purposes in a conference tournament, for at-large consideration if you don't win your conference tournament, and for seeding in the NCAA tournament if you get there.  Seeding is the key to advancing and succeeding in the tournament.

The only game that might not matter is any conference championship game played on Selection Sunday with 2 teams whose fates are already determined.

Keep it like it is.  Basketball is an indoor sport so it fits perfectly in the late fall and winter time frame.  Then outdoor sports take over in the spring.

 

 

[Old Titan]

One reason the Nov.-Dec. schedules are so unattractive to many college basketball fans is that so many Power 5 teams spend those two months beating up on low- and mid-majors in guarantee games on their home courts.  Who other than die-hards want to see Oklahoma State host Incarnate Word, or Arkansas host Grambling, in person or on TV?

I wish their was some way to force the Power 5 teams to schedule more (any?) home-and-homes with the low- and mid-majors.  It would make for a much more compelling "preseason" to see the likes of Duke or Kentucky or Michigan State play AT the home court of a potential March Cinderella like Davidson or Western Kentucky or Oakland.  (I think MSU played Oakland on a neutral floor in Detroit last season, which is a step in the right direction).

Doubt anything even close to this will happen.  More likely the big boys will eventually form their own division with its own postseason, and quit playing the low- and mid-majors EXCEPT in those November and December guarantee games...

[Bad Blood]

The regular season does matter greatly for seeding purposes in a conference tournament, for at-large consideration if you don't win your conference tournament, and for seeding in the NCAA tournament if you get there.  Seeding is the key to advancing and succeeding in the tournament.

The only game that might not matter is any conference championship game played on Selection Sunday with 2 teams whose fates are already determined.

Keep it like it is.  Basketball is an indoor sport so it fits perfectly in the late fall and winter time frame.  Then outdoor sports take over in the spring.

 

 

Seeding means very little in the NCAA Tournament outside of the first round. When a 1-seed wins, they play an 8 or 9 in the second round. But a 2-seed could play a 10, and a 5-seed could (and regularly does) play a 13 in the second round. So if you're a 1-seed, your "advantage" often turns into a disadvantage by the second game.

Sure, the regular season games have a huge affect on tournament seeding, but the seeding has very little affect on the actual tournament beyond the first round.

By the time you reach the Sweet 16, all bets are off, and the seeds may as well not even be shown next to the team name.

And, if seeding scenarios were enough to keep people interested, we wouldn't be having these discussion on how to keep people interested in the regular season.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Bad Blood

[Bad Blood]

One reason the Nov.-Dec. schedules are so unattractive to many college basketball fans is that so many Power 5 teams spend those two months beating up on low- and mid-majors in guarantee games on their home courts.  Who other than die-hards want to see Oklahoma State host Incarnate Word, or Arkansas host Grambling, in person or on TV?

I wish their was some way to force the Power 5 teams to schedule more (any?) home-and-homes with the low- and mid-majors.  It would make for a much more compelling "preseason" to see the likes of Duke or Kentucky or Michigan State play AT the home court of a potential March Cinderella like Davidson or Western Kentucky or Oakland.  (I think MSU played Oakland on a neutral floor in Detroit last season, which is a step in the right direction).

Doubt anything even close to this will happen.  More likely the big boys will eventually form their own division with its own postseason, and quit playing the low- and mid-majors EXCEPT in those November and December guarantee games...

I think everyone who is a fan of the college game would agree with what you're saying here. But without a real commissioner forcing them to do what's best for the overall sport, coaches are able to schedule in a way that benefits their programs, and thus those Duke at Davidson games you speak of will never happen.

[ORUJason]

The road to the final four is much easier for a 1 seed than a 16 seed.  I think that is so obvious I'm not sure why I have to point it out.   How excited are the 8 and 9 seed teams knowing they will certainly face a 1 seed in the 2nd round?  

The same is true in conference tournaments.  For years there were 3 tough teams at the top of the Summit League and so if you had the 1 seed you only had to play either the 2 or 3 seed in the finals while they knocked each other out in the semifinals.

A few years back ORU had only 4-5 losses going into the conference tournament and if they had lost in the finals instead of the semifinals it was expected that we would have received an at large bid.

I have just given 3 examples of reasons why the regular season record clearly matters.  Many more examples could be given.

[ManiacAlum]

Wouldn't the Turner/ESPN mega-billion dollar NBA deal pretty much eliminate this from happening?

I would think they like the NCAA Tournament right where it is, with the Final Four rolling right into the start of the NBA playoffs two weeks later. And nobody else is going to able to pay what they're getting on the current deal.

Maybe Larry Scott is turning over every rock for cost-cutting measures since the Pac-12 can't keep up with the SEC or Big 10, in terms of revenue distribution to its member schools?

 

[Dr. Cornelius]

I would be all for moving the season.

College basketball isn't what it was even ten years ago. Most people don't even start paying attention until after the Superbowl.

Does "March" make college basketball or the event itself? How many years did the NCAA tournament take place before it was labeled "March Madness"? Better to go up against the NBA regular season than the NFL.

[Bad Blood]

The road to the final four is much easier for a 1 seed than a 16 seed.  I think that is so obvious I'm not sure why I have to point it out.   How excited are the 8 and 9 seed teams knowing they will certainly face a 1 seed in the 2nd round?  

The same is true in conference tournaments.  For years there were 3 tough teams at the top of the Summit League and so if you had the 1 seed you only had to play either the 2 or 3 seed in the finals while they knocked each other out in the semifinals.

A few years back ORU had only 4-5 losses going into the conference tournament and if they had lost in the finals instead of the semifinals it was expected that we would have received an at large bid.

I have just given 3 examples of reasons why the regular season record clearly matters.  Many more examples could be given.

A 1-seed wins their first game over a 16. Then they face an 8, a 4, and a 2 to get to the final four. Then they face another 1-seed in the semifinals.

On the other side of the bracket, a 2-seed wins their first game over a 15. They they face a 10, an 11 and a 5 to get to the final four. Then they face another 5-seed in the semifinals.

The two teams meet for the national championship. Who had the easier road to the game?

Seeding does not matter after the first round.

Now add that the 1-seed was an ACC team and the fourth-best 1-seed. They got shipped to the West region. The 2-seed stayed in region and played a couple hundred miles from home in the first four rounds.

Again, this sort of thing happens every year.

Heck, in your own 16 vs. 1 scenario, seeding doesn't matter after the first game. The literally have the same path to the final four.

Seeding. Does. Not. Matter.

----

Your ORU example from 2011-12 has some validity, but it ignores one of my key points: that no potential national champion ever has to worry about at-large bids. Yes, the regular season was important for ORU, but that team was never going to win the whole thing. And it's hard to get a lot of fans interested in a regular season where the real title contenders make the postseason with no issues.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Bad Blood

[ORUJason]

A 1-seed wins their first game over a 16. Then they face an 8, a 4, and a 2 to get to the final four. Then they face another 1-seed in the semifinals.

On the other side of the bracket, a 2-seed wins their first game over a 15. They they face a 10, an 11 and a 5 to get to the final four. Then they face another 5-seed in the semifinals.

The two teams meet for the national championship. Who had the easier road to the game?

Seeding does not matter after the first round.

Now add that the 1-seed was an ACC team and the fourth-best 1-seed. They got shipped to the West region. The 2-seed stayed in region and played a couple hundred miles from home in the first four rounds.

Again, this sort of thing happens every year.

Heck, in your own 16 vs. 1 scenario, seeding doesn't matter after the first game. The literally have the same path to the final four.

Seeding. Does. Not. Matter.

----

Your ORU example from 2011-12 has some validity, but it ignores one of my key points: that no potential national champion ever has to worry about at-large bids. Yes, the regular season was important for ORU, but that team was never going to win the whole thing. And it's hard to get a lot of fans interested in a regular season where the real title contenders make the postseason with no issues.

A 16-seed has never upset a 1-seed.  Clearly seeding does matter.  To say that seeding doesn't matter after the first game in the NCAA tournament when analyzing a 16 vs. 1 scenario doesn't make sense.  The 16-seed has very little chance of winning that game because they performed so poorly in the regular season and ended up with a bad seed.  If they had performed better, maybe they would have been a 12 or 13 seed and would have a decent shot to get a 1st round win and possibly make the Sweet 16.  Teams with better seeds have a much better chance of advancing in the NCAA tournament and that is the ultimate goal.  

Most fans of NCAA basketball are fans of a specific team.  Certainly they are rooting for that team to succeed and have an opportunity to make the NCAA tournament and be positioned as well as possible to make a deep run in the tournament.  It is the results of the regular season that will determine how well they are positioned to make that run.  If those "fans" aren't paying attention during November and December, maybe it is because they are thinking incorrectly.  I guarantee the coaches will take every win possible because they know the importance that being seeded as well as possible will have on their potential to succeed. 

It seems like for several years recently when OSU has made the NCAA tournament, they have been an 8 or 9-seed.  If they are lucky enough to win their first round game, they still stand very little chance of making the Sweet 16 because they have to beat a 1-seed to get there.  What if OSU had won 1 more big game against a decent Big 12 opponent.  That would probably have been enough in some of those years to get them a 7-seed.  Then their odds of making the Sweet 16 increase because they draw a 2-seed which has historically been more prone to 2nd round upsets.  You cannot just look at seeding from the perspective of a 1 or 2 seed and ignore the impact that seeding has on the other 56 teams that make the Final 64.  

Saying that only a small number of highly seeded teams could even win the tournament, so those who are fighting for an at-large bid don't matter because they will never win the whole thing ignores many lower seeded teams who have recently made deep runs in the tournament and could have won it if a few things had fallen their way.  Some recent examples are VCU, Butler, and George Mason.  Also, Arizona won the whole thing from I believe the 6-seed position and NC State years ago won it from either an 11 or 12 seed.

Plain and simple, success in the regular season is extremely important for positioning a team for success in March, so each regular season game, even in November and December should be important to true fans of the game. 

Edited October 22, 2015 by ORUJason

[Bad Blood]

 If those "fans" aren't paying attention during November and December, maybe it is because they are thinking incorrectly.

Sure, this is a great marketing strategy. The product isn't selling well because the consumers are wrong!

Actually, that's an idiotic philosophy whether you're selling basketball games, cheeseburgers or cell phones. If consumers are ignoring your product, you need to tweak the product. Period. Don't blame fans for not watching a game that doesn't interest them.

Ultimately this argument comes down to this... if the college basketball regular season is so important, and such a strong product, then why is it losing popularity? And why are the people who run the sport thinking of ways to increase fan support?

You obviously love college basketball, and that's great - so do I. I watch it every night of the week for four months... but overall the product is losing fans, and it's not because everything is grand as you seem to think.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Bad Blood