New Postseason Tournament

[ECisGod]

There will be a new postseason tournament next year.  Two teams from the B1G, Big 12 & Big East are guaranteed + 10 other teams.

 

Fox, AEG to launch new postseason basketball tournament - ESPN

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, ECisGod said:

There will be a new postseason tournament next year.  Two teams from the B1G, Big 12 & Big East are guaranteed + 10 other teams.

 

Fox, AEG to launch new postseason basketball tournament - ESPN

Why?  The 64 best teams are in the NCAA.  What? the next 32 are in the NIT.

 

The next teams, the team is not going to care enough to be able to put a full team on the court before they hit the transfer portal....and nobody will be watching.

[Wistrom Disciple]

17 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Why?  The 64 best teams are in the NCAA.  What? the next 32 are in the NIT.

 

The next teams, the team is not going to care enough to be able to put a full team on the court before they hit the transfer portal....and nobody will be watching.

This new tourney is a direct competitor to the NCAA-controlled NIT. With there clearly being a bias towards conferences with CBS/ESPN affiliations (SEC, ACC, Big 12, Mountain West) in this year's 64-team March Madness tournament, it seemed inevitable before their main competition steps in. I don't think it's a good idea to create more tournaments, but I do like how this is only a weeklong and at a neutral site in Vegas. The main reason this may not work is if the transfer portal timeline doesn't change and players opt out. 

 

Either way, I'm sure ESPN/ABC will continue to force feed us women's basketball again next year. 

[ECisGod]

30 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Why?  The 64 best teams are in the NCAA.  What? the next 32 are in the NIT.

 

The next teams, the team is not going to care enough to be able to put a full team on the court before they hit the transfer portal....and nobody will be watching.

Probably because Fox felt left out of the postseason basketball world.

 

68 teams in the NCAA

32 in the NIT

16 in The College Basketball Crown

16 in the CBI

8 in the CIT

 

It also sound like they might expand the NCAA to 72 or 76 in the next couple of years.  80 would make more sense so there would be 16 first round games to get to 64.  When the tournament first went to 64 in 1985 there were 282 teams (64/282=22.7%) and now there are 362 (362 * .227 = 82+), so there would be approximately the same percentage of teams that make the NCAA tournament as there was when it first went to 64 if it expanded to 80.

[BigRedBuster]

6 minutes ago, Wistrom Disciple said:

This new tourney is a direct competitor to the NCAA-controlled NIT. With there clearly being a bias towards conferences with CBS/ESPN affiliations (SEC, ACC, Big 12, Mountain West) in this year's 64-team March Madness tournament, it seemed inevitable before their main competition steps in. I don't think it's a good idea to create more tournaments, but I do like how this is only a weeklong and at a neutral site in Vegas. The main reason this may not work is if the transfer portal timeline doesn't change and players opt out. 

 

Either way, I'm sure ESPN/ABC will continue to force feed us women's basketball again next year. 

How are they force feeding you women’s basketball?  You don’t have to watch. They didn’t not show men’s because of it. Some of the women’s games were some of the most watched games. 

[Wistrom Disciple]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

How are they force feeding you women’s basketball?  You don’t have to watch. They didn’t not show men’s because of it. Some of the women’s games were some of the most watched games. 

ESPN and their affiliates are heavily pushing basketball at-large on most sports fans, though especially women's basketball at both the WNBA and college levels. This is largely due to their investments in carrying the games on their networks and also their social cause agenda (which is under heavy scrutiny between Disney and their investors). You are correct, some games on the women's side were most viewed, namely the games they put on ABC in prime time. If some of those games were on TruTV, how well do you think they would rate for the networks? 

 

Where ESPN and the media fail is that they presume that there is a large appetite for women's basketball. I believe that the average college basketball fan might be able to name 5-6 women's college players beyond their home team, I'll spot half with Clark, Bueckers, & Angel Reese. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I really don't believe most could name a starting 5 if you took away their home school team. Which is why the discussions this week in regards to taking the women's tournament from school sites for the first two rounds and putting them in regional sites like the men's tournament is incredibly risky. 

[BigRedBuster]

11 hours ago, Wistrom Disciple said:

ESPN and their affiliates are heavily pushing basketball at-large on most sports fans, though especially women's basketball at both the WNBA and college levels. This is largely due to their investments in carrying the games on their networks and also their social cause agenda (which is under heavy scrutiny between Disney and their investors). You are correct, some games on the women's side were most viewed, namely the games they put on ABC in prime time. If some of those games were on TruTV, how well do you think they would rate for the networks? 

 

Where ESPN and the media fail is that they presume that there is a large appetite for women's basketball. I believe that the average college basketball fan might be able to name 5-6 women's college players beyond their home team, I'll spot half with Clark, Bueckers, & Angel Reese. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I really don't believe most could name a starting 5 if you took away their home school team. Which is why the discussions this week in regards to taking the women's tournament from school sites for the first two rounds and putting them in regional sites like the men's tournament is incredibly risky. 

So what????

 

Why does it bother you so much that they are showing women’s sports?  Again, if you don’t like it, don’t watch. 

[Vizsla1]

I like the idea- it is just a greater chance Nebraska will be playing past the B10 tournament.  If we do not fill the 7/8 open positions on the team; we are going to need all the help we can get to play past March.

[Wistrom Disciple]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

So what????

 

Why does it bother you so much that they are showing women’s sports?  Again, if you don’t like it, don’t watch. 

You asked how the media is forcing women's basketball, I answered. I didn't intend to strike a nerve but clearly I have. 

 

No problem with women's sports, in fact I wish they would show more women's college volleyball, softball, and soccer on TV beyond ESPN 8 The Ocho. I do think it was a joke that FOX chose to nationally televise two bad volleyball teams last year in Ohio State & Michigan instead of a Penn State or Nebraska match. Big miss on that choice if growing the game was the objective.

[Husker03]

16 hours ago, Wistrom Disciple said:

 

 

Either way, I'm sure ESPN/ABC will continue to force feed us women's basketball again next year. 

Da fuq?  Did you even watch any of it? Unless you hard core follow the men's game all season long, there isn't really much reason to believe that the men's tournament is any more interesting. Most people watch a few games here and there throughout the season and then tune in for the big dance. You pick the schools you like and pull for them. In todays men's game, you often don't even know player names or schools because there is so much movement. So, if you are pulling for Duke, Nebraska, and OSU in the men's division because you like those teams and you like to watch the game, easy enough to pick the same teams in the women's division and do the same. Go ahead and watch that LSU/Iowa game from Monday. I promise you, it is not more boring than any good men's game. ESPN has spoon fed us men's sports for so long, that is why you have an affinity for them, not because they are inherently superior. 

[Wistrom Disciple]

3 hours ago, Husker03 said:

Da fuq?  Did you even watch any of it? Unless you hard core follow the men's game all season long, there isn't really much reason to believe that the men's tournament is any more interesting. Most people watch a few games here and there throughout the season and then tune in for the big dance. You pick the schools you like and pull for them. In today’s men's game, you often don't even know player names or schools because there is so much movement. So, if you are pulling for Duke, Nebraska, and OSU in the men's division because you like those teams and you like to watch the game, easy enough to pick the same teams in the women's division and do the same. Go ahead and watch that LSU/Iowa game from Monday. I promise you, it is not more boring than any good men's game. ESPN has spoon fed us men's sports for so long, that is why you have an affinity for them, not because they are inherently superior. 

You are entitled to your opinion, I will disagree with your point above that the men’s and women’s game are inherently equal in ‘entertainment value.’ We can cherry-pick games to prove our points on both sides. To your point, a casual fan may not notice a difference if they watch the right set of games. However, I am not a casual fan and have watched the local men’s and women’s basketball scene for upwards of 20 years now. 
 

My main point from the original post is that there has been a concerted effort in the recent years to publicize women’s basketball at both the WNBA and college levels. In my view, this has been done in excess and, to a certain extent, exaggerated the true interest in the actual basketball games. You do not have to agree and that’s ok. If the game were as popular as the coverage suggests, sell outs will be more frequent and we should expect many programs to turn a profit soon. 

[Husker03]

This is actually an issue I have been very intrigued with lately. And, its probably too big to get in any one "take". But the gist of my intrigue is as follows....

 

For years and years and years we have considered there were 3 main sports markets in the US, and those sports markets were predominantly made up of men.  MLB, NFL, NBA.

 

The first part of the question is... Why men? Are men genetically predisposed to be fans of things more than women? Taylor Swift and Kate Spade and Stanley cups would beg to differ.  Are men more drawn to sports because they have always been exposed to them culturally from dad's/grandpas/uncles etc? Do men tend to enjoy sports more because they played them growing up?

 

I admit I do not know, but to me it stands to reason it is some form of the last two concepts. Well, starting in the 70's when title nines and thing started to come around, now you have women starting to compete in athletics in much higher numbers.  If we are being honest, at first it was painful because, overall, these were NOT competitive areas as they were brand new. Basketball was slow and ugly. Softball was an underhand pitch bastard knock off of baseball. Etc.  Over the last 50 year, however, the womens sports have become much more mainstream the the quality and competitiveness across the board has improved. More importantly, each year that goes by you have more and more women who grew up and PLAYED high school/college basketball. Now they are much more a part of the sports '"fan" equation.  

 

Stands to reason that marketing toward women, especially in areas like basketball, volleyball, etc could likely double your potential fan base.

 

That said, they can only follow the things that are broadcast to them. So, again, if it is only NBA, NFL, MLB, etc, that is the only thing anybody can easily fan up and follow. Sort of a chicken and egg thing, which comes first? I don't know for sure, but I'm almost certain that the MLB is dying because those games are too many and too boring, and in its stead a womens pro volleyball match could very possibly draw more eyes more easily in the current world.

 

Who knows?