[Husker] Colorado Series

[Dave Ratchford]

Seedings, placements, pairings designed to maximized the number of
interesting, competitive, exciting games?  There is no downside to that for
anyone.  I hope every tournament does that regardless of who is
administering it.  Whether in it for the money or for the sport, that is
good for everybody.

Dave

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Nick Chevance <nickchevance at gmail.com>wrote:

> Good answer, Mike.  And I'll agree wholeheartedly that the NCAA tournament
> committee isn't immune to what $$ mean to them.  As a long time Indiana
> basketball fan, I can tell you that we noted for years the frequency that
> IU ended up playing Syracuse in the tournament just because it pitted
> Boeheim and Knight, starting with the phone slam game.  Anyone care to lay
> odds that IU and Butler are going to meet again in a regional game this
> year?  And I'm sure its done every year for many teams.
>
> Its not the teams that get in that's a big issue for the selection
> committee - everybody has teams that are last in - first out every year.
> Its the pairings that generate the revenue for the NCAA and for the TV
> folks. Now you get to see the "match-ups" on primetime.  Its just that you
> can't see all the games in the tournament on TV anymore.
>
> I'm not saying its bad for the tournament.  It generates excitement.  And
> Mike's right, it is likely to go to 70 teams (the first couple of rounds
> will become irrelevant for the sake of money).  I'll enjoy seeing IU and
> Butler again.  But I'm under no illusions about the 'why' the teams play
> again.
>
> Nick
>
>> _
>>
>