I was sort of inferring from some of Brownell’s postseason comments that he was looking for a way to get better power 6 noncon games. Scheduling is an area where the conferences could do some work and move things around a bit. But I’m skeptical how much it would really help in the aggregate. Ultimately, the ACC was perceived poorly because of the noncon, and while there are some tricks you can use there, ultimately, ya gotta win em.
Capel’s proposal is going to be - “don’t let the ACC Network say anything negative about us”.
Overall the ACC played the lowest number of Q1 + Q2 non-con games compared to the other P6 conferences on a per-team basis, though these aren’t giant differences:
SEC: 70 (avg: 5/team)
B10: 56 (4/team)
ACC: 55 (3.67/team)
P12: 52 (4.33/team)
B12: 49 (4.9/team)
BE: 48 (4.36/team)
Clemson in particular only played 2 Q1+Q2 non-con games, which was sub-optimal. The other teams just didn’t win enough of theirs.
After reading the article, it’s even worse than I thought. Phillips idea is to urge the committee to use the eye test.
I mean, c’mon. But, nobody really means “use the eye test.” Using the eye test means that the committee would have to watch 300+ teams play multiple games of hoops, probably at least 10+ to really get it. Like, does Phillips think committee members are going to be poring over hours Synergy every night? After doing their day jobs?
No, of course not. That’s silly. What Phillips really wants is for the committee to use the “I” test. Specifically, the “I remember when the ACC was great” test. But that’s just silly. I mean, I guess if I were getting paid millions to rep the ACC, you have to say a few stupid things out loud so you can avoid the next dumb call from the Capel brothers, but I mean c’mon Jim…
And some of those differences come from having lost in round 1 of an MTE and then playing a worse team.
I wonder if this no blue blood final four will motivate the basketball Illuminati to finally crack down on the current unlimited free agency. This wide open tournament has obviously rankled the “UNC/Duke/Kansas are more deserving” establishment.
I don’t think so, because the constraint on them isn’t willingness to crack down, but more that Alston v. NCAA is likely to make them hesitant to do any restricting of NIL that would put them in violation of antitrust law. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like that was the upshot.
Don’t think it will matter as a one off. Ratings will be down next weekend but they also just had 3 of the 4 true blue bloods + Nova last year. If it becomes a trend it’ll probably be something they address before it decreases the value of the next TV rights deal
So are we arguing now that college basketball is better when there’s only a handful of teams competing for the championship every year?
I can understand why TV would prefer that. But as a fan, I love the fact that there’s so much parity now and almost everyone has a reasonable chance of winning any particular game.
If it’s always the exact same teams (ahem, football) then I think at some point there’s viewer fatigue. But more importantly, in order to keep broad interest in the sport they need to maintain the fan belief that other teams can make it. So I think their ideal situation is that the Final 4 is usually the big teams with the biggest fan bases, but often enough we see other teams get in. They need the occasional short-term hit to sustain the bigger picture.
I don’t necessarily buy the “big fan bases equal big ratings” argument. t’s not like pro sports, where the more popular teams play in the bigger TV markets. I think the Final Four is one of those events that draws viewers regardless of who is playing.
It’s tough to compare year to year because so many factors are involved, but Virginia-Texas Tech and Baylor-Gonzaga drew more viewers than Kansas-UNC, and you can’t get more blueblood than Kansas-UNC.