2010 NCAA Tournament (and NIT) Thread

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Viewers prefer to watch dynasties, familiarity, consistency, whatever you want to call it a hell of a lot more than they like to watch upstarts. They may not like those teams but they definitely seem to produce greater interest regardless of whether they love them or hate them.

You are using stats from different eras though Jon.

In the early 1990s not everyone in rural areas had a dish and were unable to watch anything they wanted. Since CBS was one of the channels that everyone could still get despite not having cable/dish the numbers were probably inflated around that time.

In the 2000's most people have many options on what they can watch due to dishnetwork and DirectTV.

It could have a lot to do with what you are saying but its hard to prove that based on numbers from different eras of television.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by ColtCrazy

Is Calipari overrated as a coach? I mean, he's great at buy...er recruiting players but he just doesn't seem to make the runs you think he should with the talent he's had.

Depends on if you want your team to fall under NCAA investigation. If so, he's the man to hire. I have -100 respect for him. (because 0 ain't low enough)

[Atocep]

I think Calipari had a great gameplan in the 1st half. They packed it inside and used the size/length of Cousins/Patterson to give WVU's motion problems. They were also limiting WVU's 2nd chance points by rebounding very well. WVU just shot lights out from 3 in the first half.

IMO, his mistake was to change things up in the 2nd half. WVU hasn't shot consistently in any game this year. I have serious doubts that the threes would have continued to fall like that. What the changes did were open up the paint for WVU cutters to make plays around the basket.

WVU has been a 2nd half team all season, but I was seriously worried heading into the half because of the way Kentucky was defending us in the 1st half.

[Swaggs]

I think that Kentucky had to be surprised that WVU ran the 1-3-1 as long as we did -- I'm not sure that we ever went away from it. I bet this is the first game, this year, that we have not run man-to-man for like 75% of the game.

[Abe Sargent]

I was worried too, but only because I know WVU, and the curse it often has in sports post-seasons.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ColtCrazy

Part of that also has to be the impact of players going pro early. Think of the great teams of the 90s. How many of the 00 champions were as good? There were some great teams in the 90s (UNLV, the Duke teams, Kentucky in 96) there were even great teams that never won it (Michigan's Fab Five). But I can't think of a lot of great teams in this past decade.

I think that 2008 Final Four was loaded. Not coincidentally, it's the one with 4 #1 seeds. You had UCLA in their 3rd straight Final Four and a pretty loaded North Carolina team who lost their first games. Memphis was an extremely talented but flawed team. And after this year's draft, 7 of the players for that Kansas team will have been drafted (tho a couple like Sasha Kaun didn't play in the NBA since he got a nice offer in Europe).

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You more than anyone else would know the answer to this question. How much has broadcast network viewership gone down over that same period due to splintering with cable?

I'd have to dig a lot to find comparisons across that many years to be honest.
The closest I can find easily is HH share was 47 broadcast/41 ad-supported cable in 2000, to 61 cable/32 broadcast share in 2009 (newer numbers came out last week and showed cable flat, b'cast up like 0.2% so far in 2010).

Definitely down ... but by the same token it doesn't seem to have hurt the Super Bowl much does it?

Also television viewing hours per person were at an all-time high in 2009, so that has to be factored as well, and the number of TV households in the US has increased from between 91 & 99 million during that first set of years to between 103m & nearly 116m this year (although that actually seems to contribute, along with increase in tv's per household, to further splintering evidence by a lower average of viewers per TV in use).

Most importantly though the sheer growth in population should have been more than sufficient to make up for the loss in share. 252m in 1991, to 308m (est) today. 20% growth in body count but over 30% loss in total viewers.

[timmynausea]

More good news for WVU: Apparently Truck Bryant should be able to play some in Indy. He'll have to wear a special shoe and will likely be in pain.

West Virginia's 'Truck' Bryant Will Play in Final Four -- NCAABB FanHouse

[Wolfpack]

I actually would side with Jon somewhat on this. From my own perspective as a person who enjoys watching sports, I'll pay attention to how the Final Four plays out and definitely watch the championship game. However, as all the brackets got busted, I actually thought the tournament started to get less appealing in a way because it's one thing to have a Cinderella mid-major like George Mason or Davidson or whoever doing damage and potentially making it. It's something else entirely when several of them are doing it. Would a Butler-UNI Final Four game really have drawn casual national attention? I think one "Cinderella" (as it loosely applies to a #5-seeded Butler and only because they aren't from one of the high major conferences) adds a dash of interest, but certainly with most of the Big East and pretty much anyone west of the Mississippi gone except Baylor (which is a distant stepson in its own state in terms of fan interest), I've no doubt that folks in NYC and LA aren't really going to be highly vested in the proceedings next weekend.

Even so, Jon makes an interesting suggestion that net population increase should have overcome fragmentation. I do wonder how accurate that point is given a decent portion of the increase is in certain population demographics that have no long-term vested interest in college basketball (or even college sports in general). Maybe I'm overestimating the impact, though. I suppose Jon could answer how much ratings have altered within certain demographics as opposed to whole populations and thus shoot the theory down.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Well he was 1 shot away from a Nat'l Championship 2 years ago but yes I would agree that he has struggled in the tourny.

That team had every win vacated from that season.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Viewers prefer to watch dynasties, familiarity, consistency, whatever you want to call it a hell of a lot more than they like to watch upstarts. They may not like those teams but they definitely seem to produce greater interest regardless of whether they love them or hate them.

Going through the numbers, dynasties like Duke didn't particularly pay off well either. Duke made the Championship 3 years in a row and two of which had low ratings for that time (the other being against the 5 freshman).

The highest rated Championship game of the 70's involved an upstart Indiana State squad that had not once played in the Division 1 tournament before. The highest rated Championship game of the 80's involved upstart NC State, a 6 seed. While the highest rated game of the 90's involved 5 freshman players from Michigan. So that argument doesn't seem to fly in the face of the numbers.

And I don't see how you can compare network TV from back then to today. It's taken a huge hit thanks to the proliferation of cable and we've seen massive drops in just about every single thing they put on. The only sporting event that has seeemd to have survived major rating drops on network TV is the Super Bowl and they have essentially killed off parity over the years and have the opposite of dynasties.

But lets take a look at the Women's Tournament. You've probably noticed, but ESPN has turned it from something that got some decent exposure on their networks to something they stick on ESPN2 and don't mention anywhere else. I haven't seen a single commercial this year for it when I can remember seeing one every break in the past. They now have their dynasty, familiarity, and superstar team. Shouldn't that be having a positive effect on their game like it does with the men in your opinion?

I'm not arguing that familiarity doesn't have some impact on ratings. I'd love to see Kevin Durant playing Derrick Rose in the Final Four this year. But I think what causes upstarts to get farther and Cinderellas to go deep is what makes the tournament so much fun. The unpredictability and drama of a single elimination tournament. Because when you see two elite teams with superstars in the Final Four, it's special. Those teams didn't get voted in by a bunch of writers determining who beat up their schedule of cupcakes more, they played a grueling 3-week tournament against the best teams in unique atmospheres. They don't get 6 weeks to prepare, they play a double OT game and have to come back out 48 hours later to play a team they've never seen before. That's what makes the tournament so much fun and it I guess can cause unfortunate scenarios where you have bad matchups later on.

Nonetheless, I don't think any of this is something that can be changed by NCAA, CBS, or ESPN. Parity is now part of college basketball thanks to the purging of talent by the NBA and even Europe. You are never going to see a star like John Wall lead Kentucky for 3-4 years. You'll never see those dynasties again thanks to the money in play in professional basketball. I guess you could have America send in text votes to see who should play in the Championship and have Ryan Seacrest reveal the winner live on national TV. But then you're just getting crappy basketball with teams you know.

[Poli]

GO VOLS!! Leaving for the game in 2 hours!!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Surprised that UK didn't give WVU a more competitive game. The Mizzou/WVU game was actually the toughest test that WVU got, with the game result still being very much in question late in the game. The other three games had their moments, but WVU put them away far earlier in those games.

[RainMaker]

It is surprising considering that Kentucky has 4 lottery picks on that team. Calipari is a great recruiter, but I still don't see him having the coaching chops to get the job done with that talent. Kentucky gave up countless uncontested baskets in that game and was outhustled throughout. Bilas was constantly pointing out that they weren't pressing when WVU had no good ballhandlers on the court.

And again, another Calipari team that doesn't shoot free throws well. Kentucky has way more talent than any team in this tournament, but Huggins outcoached him so badly it was sad.

[sterlingice]

Experience makes a huge difference when we're talking about college hoops and performance and 3 of those 4 are freshman. The math's pretty simple.

The lottery is pretty much based on potential skill, not realized skill

SI

[RainMaker]

I know that, but still, at this point in time, Kentucky has 3-4 players who are better than anyone on the West Virginia roster. I mean John Wall isn't just potential, he's the best player in college basketball right now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I mean John Wall isn't just potential, he's the best player in college basketball right now.

Except on the days when he isn't.

Last two NCAA tourney games he was 4/8 from the line & 1/8 from 3p, from a guy who normally shoots 75% from the line & 33% from behind the arc.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I know that, but still, at this point in time, Kentucky has 3-4 players who are better than anyone on the West Virginia roster. I mean John Wall isn't just potential, he's the best player in college basketball right now.

They weren't playing 1 on 1, though. Wall and co. had no real experience against a 1-3-1 like what WVU threw at them. They were uncomfortable and jacked up 30 some 3 pointers, of which they missed the first 20 in a row. I don't think they hit one until the final 2 or 3 minutes. I think experience was definitely a huge factor. And yeah, I'd say Huggins outcoached Cal, but a lot of it was in coming up with a gameplan that would frustrate Kentucky's inexperienced players and keep them out of their comfort zone.

[JonInMiddleGA]

ESPN.com reporting that sources say Fran McCaffrey will leave Siena to become the new head coach at Iowa.

[Poli]

More orange than green here!!! Go Vols!!!

[Eaglesfan27]

I wasn't expecting this type of start for either team.

[Swaggs]

Whoa! Offense?!?!

[Poli]

Couple of idiot State fans behind me. I'm trying not to think of you, Schmidty.

[mauchow]

Originally Posted by Poli

Couple of idiot State fans behind me. I'm trying not to think of you, Schmidty.

Tell them how much Bo Owns Izzo!

[Poli]

I was going to congratulate them on being the third best university in their state.

[MrBug708]

Love Izzo as a coach.

Not sure whether Tennessee deserves any Karma from their football program. They were screwed over by Lane, but it probably was a blessing in disguise for hiring him in the first place

[JonInMiddleGA]

Classic Little Pearl sequence there, make the steal & then turn it over with the bad pass.

[Schmidty]

I don't really get it, but I'm really calm watching this game.

Regardless of the outcome, I'm really proud of the Spartans.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Pity they didn't show the replay of the guy walking before that shot.

[sterlingice]

Here we go...

SI

[Eaglesfan27]

Seems like there have been a lot of close fun games to watch this tourney.

[Schmidty]

Either way, the game is in the Spartans hands. That's all I could ask for.

[Schmidty]

COME ON !!!!!!!!!!!

[Schmidty]

RAYMAR!!! PLEASE!!!!!

[MrBug708]

Terrible D

[JonInMiddleGA]

Heartbreaker, wish to hell I hadn't of called the ending (a foul on Prince) sitting here before Hopson even shot the free throw. Not to say it wasn't a foul, I just figured that would have to be how the season ended.

[jbergey22]

Again every lucky bounce goes the way of the Spartans. Good game though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is there any real reason that MSU doesn't just brick this free throw & deny UT the chance to throw the home run? I figure that's probably part of the discussion.

[Schmidty]

Not over yet.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Is there any real reason that MSU doesn't just brick this free throw & deny UT the chance to throw the home run? I figure that's probably part of the discussion.

So, Kreskin, what are the lottery numbers for tonight?

(Or maybe you're more like Cassandra- know the future but unable to do anything about it)

SI

[Schmidty]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[k0ruptr]

wow, that was a really bad shot. looked like he fumbled the ball

[bronconick]

You have to throw that out of your own backcourt, at least.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

wow, that was a really bad shot. looked like he fumbled the ball

Yeah, don't think he really had the handle when he put it up.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I loved the replay of the Spartans celebrating. Draymond Green almost body checked one of the female cheerleaders by accident. Fun finish to the game, although all the timeouts took a lot of the excitement out of it for me.

[k0ruptr]

If Baylor can just beat Duke all will be good in this world.

[MizzouRah]

Wow MSU and Coach Izzo.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

If Baylor can just beat Duke all will be good in this world.

Unless you're CBS.

[MizzouRah]

C'mon Baylor!!!

[sterlingice]

Yes, c'mon Baylor

(and since we're all rooting for them, it will be a Duke blowout )

SI