[NU Sports] NCAA Poised to Expand to Field of 96; NIT Slated for Extinction

Fri Feb 5 09:01:34 CST 2010

CBS is tied to Turner because they have been seriously discussing a joint
bid for this contract.  If it goes to 96 games, there is no way CBS can
abandon its regular viewing schedule for that many days and nights, not to
mention the extra costs of both the rights and the production costs.  It is
talking to Turner about coming in to share the load, presumably to carry the
early round weekday games, but that has not been aired publicly, at least
not anything I've seen.
Mark

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jonathan Hodges
<jonathanwhodges at gmail.com>wrote:

> Indeed, just like the BCS, this is all about money.  The NCAA gets the
> majority of its cash from the Div. I Men's Basketball Tournament TV contract
> (since it doesn't get any direct revenue from the football bowl games),
> which goes to running all 3 divisions and all sports (including tournaments
> for all of those divisions/sports except Div. I-A/FBS football, of course).
> I don't blame them for milking their cash cow, especially now that they've
> seen ESPN up the ante on sports programming with the new BCS contract that
> goes into effect this coming season.
>
> It's now likely inevitable that the tourney will increase in size in order
> to get a bigger deal.  Will that be good for the quality of competition? -
> not likely.  But the new first weekend of play-in games (assuming that is
> how the tournament is structured) will likely be entertaining, and will
> bring a lot more attention than the NIT did since the NCAA tourney expanded
> to 64.
>
> What everyone has been saying about class time missed is correct -
> basketball players miss a ton more class than football players even if a
> football playoff were instituted.  There is at least one weeknight
> basketball game each week - so there goes basically an entire day of class
> for travel.  Football can at least squeeze in morning classes on Fridays
> before traveling.  And take away at least 2 days for the conference
> tournament.  Then for the NCAA tourney there goes 2-3 days for up to 3
> weekends.
>
> A couple of notes: Northwestern's winter quarter typically ends close to
> (usually just after) the conference tournament, meaning the first week of
> the NCAA tournament lines up with final exams.  Although in-season athletes
> do typically take a lighter course load (3 in the case of NU) and obviously
> have to make arrangements for alternate test-taking times due to travel, so
> the flexibility is there.  Still, football is definitely done by the time
> exams roll around, and most bowl prep is done during break.
>
> Jonathan
>
> PS: Why is Turner lumped in with CBS?  I don't think CBS was ever owned by
> Turner - it was part of Westinghouse and then owned by Viacom before they
> were spun off in their own entity.
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Sportsbiz <sportsbiz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The main point of 96 is to extract additional money out of CBS/Turner or
>> ESPN/ABC.  The $6 billion, 11 year contract has an opt out clause giving
>> the
>> NCAA the right to opt out this year and as part of the negotiations over a
>> new contract, this whole misbegotten idea came rolling out of the TV
>> trucks.
>>  CBS is losing money on its current deal and thinks an extra weekend, if
>> indeed that is the way it's structured, will more than make up the
>> difference.  I think they are spending way too much time in Black Rock if
>> they think they can sell the new first weekend the same way they sell 64.
>>
>> In any event, assuming it goes to 96, which is by no means certain, there
>> is
>> a strong movement among administrative/educational types to make it Mon.,
>> Tuesday of the first week so that the kids don't miss another week of
>> class
>> in what is, for many schools although not NU, mid-terms period.  Now, if
>> CBS
>> or ESPN think they can get ratings high enough to justify the price of a
>> new
>> contract when they're selling 32 play-in games played during the weekday
>> and
>> another 32 on the weekend, well, I would sure like to share in whatever it
>> is they're smoking.
>>
>> Whether it ultimately ends up at 96 will be determined by the final bids
>> from CBS/Turner (itself a scary thought) and ESPN.  The latter despertaly
>> wants the tournament back and will do almost anything to get it.  It is
>> likely to outbid CBS without going to 96 games if it senses the wind is
>> not
>> shifting in that direction.  But if its intelligence says the schools want
>> 96, you can bet with certainty that as far putting money on the table,
>> ESPN
>> will accept 96, use all of its vast resources and outbid CBS. Whether that
>> will be enough is what makes the game interesting.
>> Mark
>>
>> Mark S. Ament
>> sportsbiz at gmail.com
>> SportsBiz - The Business of Sports
>> Illuminated<http://thesportsbizblog.blogspot.com/>
>>
>> When it comes to sports, you know it's all about the money
>> Stay tuned for the exciting new SportsBiz coming your way soon
>> Chat Skype: marksament
>> Contact Me [image: Twitter] <twitter:%20msament>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Eric West <e-west at northwestern.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > As far as I can determine, the main point of 96 would be to help the
>> > BCS-conference teams that are currently left out of the current 65-team
>> > format.
>> >
>> > I'm not saying I agree; I always marvel each selection Sunday when
>> > commentators whine about those poor BCS teams not getting a "chance"
>> after
>> > having finished sixth or seventh in their conference, even begrudging
>> the
>> > few non-BCS schools who receive at-large bids (getting fewer by the
>> year).
>> >
>> > I view it as a cousin of the mentality that gives us 34 bowl games in
>> > football. When it gets to that stage, money is far less relevant; the
>> main
>> > point is that no qualifying (i.e., .500 or above) BCS school be turned
>> away.
>> > After all, think of those poor kids who work so hard, blah blah blah...
>> >
>> > Eric West
>> > e-west at northwestern.edu
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Tom Maycock wrote:
>> >
>> >> 96? Why????
>> >>
>> >> I've always thought 64 was way too many to begin with. A good portion
>> of
>> >> the 64 teams already have essentially no chance whatsoever of winning
>> the
>> >> tournament, and no #1 team should have to waste time playing a #16
>> seed. So
>> >> what's the point of expanding to 96?
>> >> OK, I know, the "point" is making money, but sheesh. Why not just
>> cancel
>> >> the whole season and just play the tournament?
>> >>
>> >> Tom
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > nwu-sports site list
>> > nwu-sports at tssi.com
>> > http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark S. Ament
>> sportsbiz at gmail.com
>> SportsBiz - The Business of Sports
>> Illuminated<http://thesportsbizblog.blogspot.com>
>>
>> When it comes to sports, you know it's all about the money
>> Stay tuned for the exciting new SportsBiz coming your way soon
>> Chat Skype: marksament
>> Contact Me [image: Twitter] <twitter:%20msament>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nwu-sports site list
>> nwu-sports at tssi.com
>> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports
>>
>
>
>
>