RIP NIT?

[brewcity77]

In that sense yes, more games = more money.  Third place teams progressing diminishes the quality of the WC, as well as the quality of qualification.  The 32 team format was perfect.

I thought so, but watching players like Erling Haaland, Mo Salah, & Zlatan miss the last World Cup made me reconsider. Increasing the number of teams increases the opportunities for elite players from smaller countries to show their brilliance.

As constructed, the WC is the best. And as constructed, the NCAA Tournament has clear room for improvement. We'll see how well expansion of both is managed.

[Its DJOver]

I thought so, but watching players like Erling Haaland, Mo Salah, & Zlatan miss the last World Cup made me reconsider. Increasing the number of teams increases the opportunities for elite players from smaller countries to show their brilliance.

As constructed, the WC is the best. And as constructed, the NCAA Tournament has clear room for improvement. We'll see how well expansion of both is managed.

Costs significantly outweigh the benefits IMO.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

What "costs?" If you don't like to watch some of the games, don't watch them.

[Its DJOver]

What "costs?" If you don't like to watch some of the games, don't watch them.

Costs as in loss of format quality.  That's what hinged the discussion, Brew saying that the WC format was the best in all of sports.  It was, I don't think that's still the case.  I probably won't watch them.

[panda]

Costs as in loss of format quality.  That's what hinged the discussion, Brew saying that the WC format was the best in all of sports.  It was, I don't think that's still the case.  I probably won't watch them.

I'll still watch. I'll still gamble on it. I'll eventually get used to it. HOWEVA - it will take some serious getting used to. Really hard to argue against watering down the product to let in more booty high major teams.

[brewcity77]

Costs as in loss of format quality.  That's what hinged the discussion, Brew saying that the WC format was the best in all of sports.  It was, I don't think that's still the case.  I probably won't watch them.

There were the same arguments when it went to 24 and 32. I'm sure also when it went from 16 to 24.

NCAA fans that cling to 68 like it's some sacrosanct number were up in arms when it expanded from 65 and when it expanded to 65.

Expansion is inevitable, so the key is to do it well. Keep what's good about the 64-team format while making the expanded games more compelling than the First Four is now.

[Its DJOver]

There were the same arguments when it went to 24 and 32. I'm sure also when it went from 16 to 24.

NCAA fans that cling to 68 like it's some sacrosanct number were up in arms when it expanded from 65 and when it expanded to 65.

Expansion is inevitable, so the key is to do it well. Keep what's good about the 64-team format while making the expanded games more compelling than the First Four is now.

To be clear, I have no problem expanding the NCAA tournament.  My only concern would be when the "first 4" or "round 0" or whatever they'll end up calling it will be played.  I can take two days off of work to watch the best two days of sports of the year, but if they expand to the point where those first 4 games would be Tuesday and Wednesday afternoon, I don't think I could justify finding time to watch those as well. Right now you can watch every game of the tournament only taking two days off, I can't justify having to double that number to watch watch games consisting of two low majors or sub .500 P6 teams.

The WC however, I am upset about.  Not only do you go away from a perfect model, you simultaneously dilute the level of competition by expansion (where the drop-off between the last 4 in and first 4 out is much larger than CBB IMO), and you reward teams that finish 3rd in their group, which dilutes the competition further.  I'm sure there will still be entertaining games, many of which I will watch, but they're going away from a perfect model in order to make more $.  That is the upsetting part.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

To be clear, I have no problem expanding the NCAA tournament.  My only concern would be when the "first 4" or "round 0" or whatever they'll end up calling it will be played.  I can take two days off of work to watch the best two days of sports of the year, but if they expand to the point where those first 4 games would be Tuesday and Wednesday afternoon, I don't think I could justify finding time to watch those as well. Right now you can watch every game of the tournament only taking two days off, I can't justify having to double that number to watch watch games consisting of two low majors or sub .500 P6 teams.

The WC however, I am upset about.  Not only do you go away from a perfect model, you simultaneously dilute the level of competition by expansion (where the drop-off between the last 4 in and first 4 out is much larger than CBB IMO), and you reward teams that finish 3rd in their group, which dilutes the competition further.  I'm sure there will still be entertaining games, many of which I will watch, but they're going away from a perfect model in order to make more $.  That is the upsetting part.

Having third place teams advance to the knock out round is a very common occurrence at tournaments throughout the world. It happens now at the Euros, Copa America and the African Cup of Nations. It even happened in the World Cup in the past - the US team in 1994 wouldn't have advanced to the knockout round otherwise.

So while you might think the current format is "perfect," a lot of people who organize some pretty big tournaments disagree.

[Its DJOver]

Having third place teams advance to the knock out round is a very common occurrence at tournaments throughout the world. It happens now at the Euros, Copa America and the African Cup of Nations. It even happened in the World Cup in the past - the US team in 1994 wouldn't have advanced to the knockout round otherwise.

So while you might think the current format is "perfect," a lot of people who organize some pretty big tournaments disagree.

The people that organize tournaments first priority isn't the quality of the product, it's maximizing $.  That's why you see countries like Qatar (and to a lesser extend the US) invited to the Copa America.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The people that organize tournaments first priority isn't the quality of the product, it's maximizing $.  That's why you see countries like Qatar (and to a lesser extend the US) invited to the Copa America.

I just don't see "the quality of the product" suffering all that much.

[Hards Alumni]

The people that organize tournaments first priority isn't the quality of the product, it's maximizing $.  That's why you see countries like Qatar (and to a lesser extend the US) invited to the Copa America.

Well yes, no one does any of this for the purity of the sport.

[Its DJOver]

I just don't see "the quality of the product" suffering all that much.

A small downgrade is still a downgrade.  There probably won't be a huge drop-off, but there will be one, an unnecessary one.

Well yes, no one does any of this for the purity of the sport.

Sure, but the ideals of the "purist fan" and the ideals of the "organizers" have never been further apart. $ has always driven everything, but as $ has skyrocketed, organizers are getting greedier and greedier, to the detriment of the sport.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

A small downgrade is still a downgrade.  There probably won't be a huge drop-off, but there will be one, an unnecessary one.

More games is a larger upgrade though.

[Its DJOver]

More games is a larger upgrade though.

Not if the games are uncompetitive, using your "more games is a larger upgrade mindset, every country should be invited.  It maximizes games right?

[lawdog77]

Expansion is inevitable, so the key is to do it well. Keep what's good about the 64-team format while making the expanded games more compelling than the First Four is now.

Curious on how you propose to make it more compelling. Adding the 15th place team from the Big 10 doesn't seem like that would work.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Not if the games are uncompetitive, using your "more games is a larger upgrade mindset, every country should be invited.  It maximizes games right?

I guess we have decided to just be ridiculous.

Anyway, the three third place teams to advance at Euro 2020 were Portugal (lost 1-0 to Belgium), Switzerland (lost in PKs to France after drawing 3-3), Czech Republic (beat the Netherlands 2-0), and Ukraine (beat Sweden 2-1 in extra time.)

I don't recall the details, but it doesn't seem like quality suffered all that much - in fact the match that looks like the least competitive was the one the third place team won.

But that's not the World Cup.  So lets go back to 1994 - the last time third place teams advanced to the knock outs.  They were USA (host lost 1-0 to Brazil), Argentina (lost 3-2 to Romania), Italy (advanced to finals where they lost in PKs), and Belgium (lost 3-2 to Germany).  Looks like a bunch of competitive games to me.

I just think the premise that this is going to be some massive downgrade in quality is a tad questionable.

[Uncle Rico]

A small downgrade is still a downgrade.  There probably won't be a huge drop-off, but there will be one, an unnecessary one.

Sure, but the ideals of the "purist fan" and the ideals of the "organizers" have never been further apart. $ has always driven everything, but as $ has skyrocketed, organizers are getting greedier and greedier, to the detriment of the sport.

Let me preface this by saying my decision is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but this "purist" walked away from college football this year. 

I've been leaning this way for a few years because of realignment and the end of traditional rivalries.  The end of the Pac-12 and the thought of Oregon-Rutgers as a conference game?  Not my thing.

Ultimately, what was our traditions and rivalries that made us gravitate towards this sport being replaced by new rivalries or traditions will be the new normal in time.  It's just not a time for me.

I would caution the powers to be, to understand what makes the tournament great.  The hardcore fans that post on message boards watch beyond what the casual fan watches for which is the bracket and chaos.  The bracket is the thing that brings the casual fan into the tournament.  Gambling baby, we love it.  You start making it 80 teams or 96 and it becomes more consulted to follow?  The casual fan is punting.  You start making it tilt towards the favorites beyond what it is now?  The interest won't be the same. 

[Its DJOver]

I guess we have decided to just be ridiculous.

Anyway, the three third place teams to advance at Euro 2020 were Portugal (lost 1-0 to Belgium), Switzerland (lost in PKs to France after drawing 3-3), Czech Republic (beat the Netherlands 2-0), and Ukraine (beat Sweden 2-1 in extra time.)

I don't recall the details, but it doesn't seem like quality suffered all that much - in fact the match that looks like the least competitive was the one the third place team won.

But that's not the World Cup.  So lets go back to 1994 - the last time third place teams advanced to the knock outs.  They were USA (host lost 1-0 to Brazil), Argentina (lost 3-2 to Romania), Italy (advanced to finals where they lost in PKs), and Belgium (lost 3-2 to Germany).  Looks like a bunch of competitive games to me.

I just think the premise that this is going to be some massive downgrade in quality is a tad questionable.

Of course I had to be ridiculous because you're making statements along the lines of "expansion=more games=more exertainment", like it's that simple.  Of course you wouldn't want a tournament with 211 FIFA recognized nations, but where do you draw the line?  For me, it's 32. It's at least 48 for you and Brew, if not higher. 

The argument isn't just that third place teams can advance as bad for the tournament, it's that third place teams can advance, coupled with expansion.  Comparing the third place teams from 1994 and 2026 is apples to oranges.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Of course I had to be ridiculous because you're making statements along the lines of "expansion=more games=more exertainment", like it's that simple.  Of course you wouldn't want a tournament with 211 FIFA recognized nations, but where do you draw the line?  For me, it's 32. It's at least 48 for you and Brew, if not higher. 

The argument isn't just that third place teams can advance as bad for the tournament, it's that third place teams can advance, coupled with expansion.  Comparing the third place teams from 1994 and 2026 is apples to oranges.

I guess if you keep wanting to shift goalposts, you'll get to make your point. Carry on.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Let me preface this by saying my decision is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but this "purist" walked away from college football this year. 

I've been leaning this way for a few years because of realignment and the end of traditional rivalries.  The end of the Pac-12 and the thought of Oregon-Rutgers as a conference game?  Not my thing.

The problem is the marketplace isn't agreeing with you.

https://sports.yahoo.com/is-next-year-the-year-fans-tune-out-college-football-because-of-the-disaster-that-is-nil-195458354.html

[Its DJOver]

To me, more games and more rounds makes it better - more games to watch and more potential for upsets.

To you, it might be this simple, but to people that follow the sport, we know it's not.

In that sense yes, more games = more money.  Third place teams progressing diminishes the quality of the WC, as well as the quality of qualification.  The 32 team format was perfect.

2nd post on the topic.

Yes, but there's a law of diminishing returns.  Watching Qatar get embarrassed on the pitch last fall was not entertaining.  2026 has 8 AFC auto qualifiers with the potential for one more, so not only would Qatar be back, but you could see countries like Oman and the UAE there as well.  Watching Spain against the top OFC team (which is now guaranteed a spot in the tournament rather than just a play off), is the equivalent of Spain against Georgia, which we just saw end 7-1 in qualifying.  The 32 team format was perfect.

Third.

My goalposts have remained in place.  You refuse to answer a question on how big you want a tournament when your "more games and more rounds makes it better" comments get questioned.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

To you, it might be this simple, but to people that follow the sport, we know it's not.

2nd post on the topic.

Third.

My goalposts have remained in place.  You refuse to answer a question on how big you want a tournament when your "more games and more rounds makes it better" comments get questioned.

Again, you decided to go absurd instead of dealing with historical realities.  So not only did you shift the goalposts, you built a nice strawman as well.  Congrats.

[brewcity77]

To be clear, I have no problem expanding the NCAA tournament.  My only concern would be when the "first 4" or "round 0" or whatever they'll end up calling it will be played.  I can take two days off of work to watch the best two days of sports of the year, but if they expand to the point where those first 4 games would be Tuesday and Wednesday afternoon, I don't think I could justify finding time to watch those as well. Right now you can watch every game of the tournament only taking two days off, I can't justify having to double that number to watch watch games consisting of two low majors or sub .500 P6 teams.

One of the main reasons I support going to 80 with 16 games on Tuesday/Wednesday at 4 sites is because you can package that into evening programming. Start at 6:00 EST, then continue to start a game every twenty minutes for the first window, so 6:20, 6:40, and 7:00. Then plan the next window to start at 8:40 to allow time between the first and second games at the opening site, with subsequent games at 9:00, 9:20, and 9:40. The last game should be done before midnight. Effectively cramming 8 games into a 6-hour window for two nights. Very doable.

[Its DJOver]

Again, you decided to go absurd instead of dealing with historical realities.  So not only did you shift the goalposts, you built a nice strawman as well.  Congrats.

So you again refuse to answer a question.  Congrats.  If you're going to have claims that the "right" number is somewhere between 32 and 211, but won't say where, then I guess you can paint with a broad enough brush to fall somewhere near a possibly correct answer. Good job.

[Uncle Rico]

The problem is the marketplace isn't agreeing with you.

https://sports.yahoo.com/is-next-year-the-year-fans-tune-out-college-football-because-of-the-disaster-that-is-nil-195458354.html

Oh, I'm aware.  Wetzel's article is largely about NIL, though.  His point is the leaders of college athletics having been crying wolf for years about pending doom as athletes get more control and there isn't evidence that's been the case.  I'd argue it isn't the athletes that could doom college athletics but the so-called leaders.

Either way, there is no doom incoming.  For me and college football, it's a matter of aesthetics as much as anything.  If the Big East gets broken up or left behind in realignment, I'd have to see where Marquette ends up.