CBS saying that this was the highest watched 2nd Rd since 1993.
The highest watched game? UK-Illini.
We’re back baby.
The highest watched game? UK-Illini.
We’re back baby.
Kentucky Moving the Needle Again
- Thread starter bbncal02
- Start date
Big Brands/No CinderFellas. That's what people love in sports--the best of best going at it. Hate to break it to the all the media crying/whining about the lack of upsets but the best Tournaments are when the top teams advance and battle it out. Period. Always been that way.
Butler played in back to back Final Fours/National Championship games. They were some of the worst played games you'll ever watch including the disgusting 2011 game with UConn where we got the inevitable "Dome shooting background" excuse and the apology from Clark Kellogg for how awful the game was played.
There's a reason people watch Alabama-Georgia in FB, Kentucky-Duke in Basketball, etc despite what the media wants to tell you about this Tournament. Same media who will sell Women's Tournament which is still played on campus sites to help get some attendance and most of the games margins are 25-40 pt routs from the top teams.
Butler played in back to back Final Fours/National Championship games. They were some of the worst played games you'll ever watch including the disgusting 2011 game with UConn where we got the inevitable "Dome shooting background" excuse and the apology from Clark Kellogg for how awful the game was played.
There's a reason people watch Alabama-Georgia in FB, Kentucky-Duke in Basketball, etc despite what the media wants to tell you about this Tournament. Same media who will sell Women's Tournament which is still played on campus sites to help get some attendance and most of the games margins are 25-40 pt routs from the top teams.
Thought Carolina would be.
Oh, nevermind
I am tired of seeing Cadeau on that commercial though
Oh, nevermind
I am tired of seeing Cadeau on that commercial though
When I watch it I just think casuals might think that’s a player for the UNC women
The only thing is.. while I agree with those that say it creates better basketball games (by not having these Cinderella's win one game, only to get destroyed in the next round).. is it THAT much to ask that we don't have SOME upsets? I was listening to Cowherd yesterday, and others.. and they made it seem like the Final4 is all double digit teams and bad basketball across the board that no one wants to watch. And it's just not. The majority of Sweet16 games and beyond are very good matchups. Sure, we will get an 11-seed playing a 2-seed every now and then.. but I hardly see the problem with that, while w'ere still getting plenty of 1/4's, 2/3's, 6/2's etc etc.
The beauty of this sport is that there IS still the wild upsets that happen, and I don't agree that having just a handful of those every year is taking away from the sport.
IDK, I think it was fine the way it was the last 20 or so years. Most of the best teams generally make their way to the Sweet16, The Elite 8, and beyond. Kansas loses to Bucknell early? Oh well. Do better. It's not damaging the sport because Bucknell plays a 2nd round game and loses by 25.
Like if you told me that the opening round was basically going to be chalk every year.. I might not find much value in tuning into it. Maybe that makes the 2nd and 3rd weekends better because a few more matchups..
But if you devalue that first round entirely, then the quoute unquote "best weekend in sports" (which, it is), all the sudden isn't so much anymore. And I think a lot of people would start to tune out a bit, at least for that first weekend. If the 14-seed basically has no chance to beat the 3-seed anymore, why do I need to watch? Why do I need to take these days off and gather with friends to see which of our upsets happen?
But if you devalue that first round entirely, then the quoute unquote "best weekend in sports" (which, it is), all the sudden isn't so much anymore. And I think a lot of people would start to tune out a bit, at least for that first weekend. If the 14-seed basically has no chance to beat the 3-seed anymore, why do I need to watch? Why do I need to take these days off and gather with friends to see which of our upsets happen?
This. In my mind you need both. If you don’t have any upsets it’s boring and why even have bracket contests. But if there’s too much parity and all the little schools are flooding in then that’s not interesting either. You have to have upsets. And you have to have enough of the power schools get in and go far on a regular basis so that when a little school beats one of them it really is an upset and is exciting.
Yep, and I think we had the perfect balance the last 20 years or so.. Some years more than others.. but generally 75-80% of your 1/2/3's moved on.. maybe 60-70% of your 4/5/6's .. That seems perfectly fine to me. I think it was the perfect balance where the power teams had a very good chance to move past the first weekend.. but no team was ever 100% safe. I don't really like what we got this year. I think it was too chalk. And that may help the ratings for weekends 2 and 3.. but I think it hurts the opening round, and that round might be the biggest and most important part of college basketball. I'd be careful not to mess with that too much, just to make sure a single 2-seed moves on with ease.
I mean it’s just one year. We had the same thing like 5 years ago where it was almost all chalk and then in 2023 there was too many upsets. It’s just one year not like it’s a trend or anything. I do agree with you BTW but there’s no reason to think there won’t be more upsets next year, it is college bball after all.
Well the Big Ten Mafia can't complain-because they were involved in the games that could've produced the most upsets--to make everyone who gets off on that happy. They have one Tournament win over a seed lower than 10th in this '25 Tournament.
There were upsets--just the type many don't care for like Ole Miss dog walking Iowa St or Arkansas beating the NYC "darlings" from St. John's. Jimmy Fallon song and appearance be damned.
As hard as Seth Davis and Jay Wright were trying to convince the basketball public that St. Mary's lame ass program would win--Bama punked those slow dorks of Clint Howard and St. Mary's who can't make enough shots to justify even putting them in the NCAA Tournament IMO.
Now contrast that with the whistle that New Mexico got in the Michigan St game? Nobody complains about that because we've got this "March is Izzo time" nonsense that is spewed.
Upsets will still happen and it's often when lower to mid major teams have better coaches than the bigger schools. Niko Medved upset Memphis due to that and almost beat Maryland. McCollum beat Missouri and then thankfully lost to Texas Tech because I personally can't watch that crap style Drake played.
It's sports-the beauty is there's no sure thing in an outcome. Some years are different but you don't make 1 year a "fear of the joy of the Tournament" because you don't like the teams or Conference that is the best.
Media sure hates when the SEC is the best at anything is what comes across to me. Nobody complains when Big East teams advance and are not upset. Nobody complains when Big Ten teams advance (10-0 and no mention of how lopsided the seeding wins were). Just like CFB--it was "awful" for the sport when the pasty Northerners couldn't compete and now they've won back to back NC's is anyone talking about how it's "bad" for the sport?
Hope it's 4 SEC teams in The Final Four (don't think it will be) just to piss everyone off further.
There were upsets--just the type many don't care for like Ole Miss dog walking Iowa St or Arkansas beating the NYC "darlings" from St. John's. Jimmy Fallon song and appearance be damned.
As hard as Seth Davis and Jay Wright were trying to convince the basketball public that St. Mary's lame ass program would win--Bama punked those slow dorks of Clint Howard and St. Mary's who can't make enough shots to justify even putting them in the NCAA Tournament IMO.
Now contrast that with the whistle that New Mexico got in the Michigan St game? Nobody complains about that because we've got this "March is Izzo time" nonsense that is spewed.
Upsets will still happen and it's often when lower to mid major teams have better coaches than the bigger schools. Niko Medved upset Memphis due to that and almost beat Maryland. McCollum beat Missouri and then thankfully lost to Texas Tech because I personally can't watch that crap style Drake played.
It's sports-the beauty is there's no sure thing in an outcome. Some years are different but you don't make 1 year a "fear of the joy of the Tournament" because you don't like the teams or Conference that is the best.
Media sure hates when the SEC is the best at anything is what comes across to me. Nobody complains when Big East teams advance and are not upset. Nobody complains when Big Ten teams advance (10-0 and no mention of how lopsided the seeding wins were). Just like CFB--it was "awful" for the sport when the pasty Northerners couldn't compete and now they've won back to back NC's is anyone talking about how it's "bad" for the sport?
Hope it's 4 SEC teams in The Final Four (don't think it will be) just to piss everyone off further.
I think what folks like Cowherd were getting at though, is NIL is giving the top programs more power to pluck any and all talent from the mid majors, and they can do it pretty much at will. And to them, that's a good thing because it gives people what they really want, which is the proper match ups down the road.
Maybe this year is a one off, because we do have years like this sometimes. But there's also a lot of data to suggest this could be a growing trend. I think someone posted a statistic that the efficiency gap between the 1's/16's, 2/s'15's, and the 3's/14's is the largest we've ever seen. I have to think some of that is NIL combined with the transfer portal.
But, it is just one year, so who knows.
I agree with Ralph. Randos will enjoy a few upsets just as must as anyone, but the best thing that could happen to the sport is a juggernaut Elite Eight lineup that includes Kentucky vs. Houston; Alabama vs. Duke; etc.
People want to see the big dogs go at it.
It's why that same 1993 tournament that CBS is citing is probably one of the best ever, even to this day. You have Kansas vs. UNC on one end, and a Mashburn-led UK team against the Fab 5 in the other. 2/3 of the games were extremely close, and all four teams had been ranked #1 at one point in the season.
America loved it.
People want to see the big dogs go at it.
It's why that same 1993 tournament that CBS is citing is probably one of the best ever, even to this day. You have Kansas vs. UNC on one end, and a Mashburn-led UK team against the Fab 5 in the other. 2/3 of the games were extremely close, and all four teams had been ranked #1 at one point in the season.
America loved it.
Ya I guess but last year was full on NIL and we had plenty of upsets. Back in the 90s upsets were really rare too as players stayed all 4 years. I remember when Hampton won as a 15 seed it was the first time in history. A 16 had never beaten a 1 seed until 2018 etc. I just think it’s too early to call it a trend and over the last 35 years college ball has changed so much except for one thing: the first weekend delivers pretty much everytime.
I guess my point though.. you CAN still get that. You can still have a bit of both. Yeah, a few recent years we maybe had TOO many lower seeds push through.. but by and large, you're still getting compelling games in the final 4.
IDK, I thought the last 15 years of the tournament was as close to perfection as you can get. It was just the right amount of chaos and upsets, while still generally seeing the top teams in it until the end. Now this year could very much just be a one-off, I don't think anyone really knows. I'm just saying, I don't know if it's a good thing if the talent shifts to the point where the opening round becomes a formality and the mid major becomes completely irrelevant, aside from 1 or 2 teams winning an opening round game.
