If you cant build a decent team with that, you have coaching problems. On the other hand, if it was that simple to become a great team, Kentucky would have more than 1 title in the last 20 odd years.
You are repeating yourself with no new evidence or even theory. I would point out, then, that you don't know that ESPN wasn't granted the rights to televise FSU's games for the next dozen or so years whether or not it is in the ACC and whether or not there is an ACC. And, in the absence of any knowledge either way, it makes far more sense that ESPN would have wanted the protection I am hypothesizing.
This is a college basketball message board, not a brief
UConn vs Duke would be top 5.
There’s talk that when the next NCAA tournament contract Is negotiated they might start and end the basketball season a 2-3 weeks later so there’s not as much overlap with football. That may be a way to get more TV money for the conferences.
I like that idea. I hate when football and basketball end. Stretch it out.
Well, then, let's all be wrong. Because he's right
Football is more valuable than basketball because more people care and watch, but that's not why basketball is undervalued. Basketball is undervalued because, for purely historical reasons, conferences with members who participate keep all of the post season bowl and post season television monies from the college football post-season, while post-season revenues from college basketball are used to fund NCAA operations and provide funding to lower level programs before the remaining monies are divided up among the schools playing in the games. If college football participated in these other payments proportionately with college basketball based on the gross revenues of the respective post-seasons, conferences and schools would make much more from college basketball success and something less from college football success, college basketball success would be valued more and thus college basketball would be fairly valued and not undervalued. And UConn would never have been left without a P-5 home.
Yes but Michigan State Marquette in the second round got more viewers than every regular season football game and every bowl game outside of the 4 team playoff. I get that football gets great ratings but it's so many less regular season games and 20+ less tournament/bowl games.
I've never understood why men's college basketball carries the burden for college sports.
Regardless of payout, of which the NCAA pays out 60% of tournament revenue, the NCAA tournament with 67 games makes a little more than a billion dollars. The 3 game college football playoff makes $500 million, and when they go to the 12 team, 11 game version, it will be around 2 billion dollars. That doesn't include all the bowl games. Regular season, the disparity between the two is even higher. Football makes multiples of what basketball does.
www.sportsmediawatch.com
I feel the exact same way about the Super Bowl vs. every other major sport. Football has the softest championship of any sport. The Stanley Cup Finals blow the super bowl away. I think it all started with George Carlin.
The issue is that it’s not guaranteed every year. Michigan-OSU is an every year event. They are purchasing that game with the package. That game alone pulled in over 17 million viewers last year. The Iron Bowl is guaranteed. Red River is guaranteed. Next year, PSU and USC will be guaranteed every year. These are/will be huge viewership draws. Personally, I think basketball should have a higher value, but it doesn’t.
The media valuation is irrelevant. We're discussing the fact that the NCAA skims from the basketball tournament. If it didn't, then the conferences would get $700m extra dollars a year, which would jack up the worth of UConn for P-5 conferences.