The Official Bracketology Thread | Page 7 | The Boneyard

The Official Bracketology Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
CL82 said:
I’d love to see whatever study or article you’re referring to. Because all of that is news to me. I find it highly unlikely, however, that ESPN in the NCAA are colluding to make women’s basketball look bad. But hey, I’ll read anything, if you link it.

This is my understanding of the numbers, however:
View attachment 73787
Expand ...

First, why can't anyone believe that the NCAA would work closely with their primary source of revenue? The unbelievable POV is that they don't.

The second problem with this post is the phrase "the N.C.A.A. said".
I have to weigh anything they say because it's almost certainly a biased POV.
 
MSGRET said:
That story was debunked and acknowledged by the NCAA that the reason why the tournament lost money is because it is not a standalone like the men's. Why do you think they tried to make it look like they were losing money. It was because they had a major problem with the men's tournament vs the women's. The optics was so bad they tried to make it a money issue when in reality the women's tournament was more of an afterthought because of Title IX. The NCAA commissioned a committee after this debacle because not only was it bad for them in the eyes of the people, but the US Government was asking questions that was not favorable too the differences the two tournaments were being treated. The first change was that both the men's and women's tournaments will be now referred as March Madness. I believe that this is the first time that all of the commercial time has been sold out in the women's. Could it be because of the name change from the Women's National Basketball Tournament to March Madness? Then it will be the new television contract once this one expires, the one that the NCAA committee stated that it would make at least $50,000.000 as a separate entity. This all came out sometime in late Summer or early fall, I can't remember if Congress did have a public hearing with the NCAA, but I do remember a lot of heat from them.

Here is two of the first stories that started the issues on the differences between the men's and women's https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrEeBwKjxpi6y8Ayg4PxQt.;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzQEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1645936523/RO=10/RU=https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/979395795/mens-and-womens-ncaa-march-madness-facilities-separate-and-unequal-spark-uproar/RK=2/RS=9vOmRRwOSV3LguoGkXA4Fw4MsKQ-


I will look to find the one's on the reason for changing the March Madness and the NCAA committee recommendations.
Expand ...
Thank you for the two links to articles about last year‘s NCAA tournament disparities between the treatment of female and male athletes. Neither one of the articles gives any support for the proposition that ESPN in the NCAA are colluding to make the finances of the woman’s tournaments look artificially bad.
 
Alydar said:
First, why can't anyone believe that the NCAA would work closely with their primary source of revenue? The unbelievable POV is that they don't.

The second problem with this post is the phrase "the N.C.A.A. said".
I have to weigh anything they say because it's almost certainly a biased POV.
Expand ...
Anyone can believe whatever they want. But it is extraordinarily unlikely that a major Netwerk and the NCAA would be colluding to make the finances of the women’s tournament look bad. It really makes zero sense. But hey, if you want to believe it feel free.

The quoted texture referencing is from a New York Times article. If you want to believe they’re in collusion as well, again feel free. From my perspective, I am likely to believe quoted numbers from a New York Times article, absent any evidence to the contrary.
 
CL82 said:
Anyone can believe whatever they want. But it is extraordinarily unlikely that a major Netwerk and the NCAA would be colluding to make the finances of the women’s tournament look bad. It really makes zero sense. But hey, if you want to believe it feel free.
Expand ...

It makes some sense.

ESPN would do it because they have to bid on a new wcbb contract and the first one that's just for wcbb. They want it as cheap as possible.

As for NCAA, they are still trying to defend the discrepancy between the men and women and saying they lose millions every year aids in creating that perception. It might hurt them for the next contract but the people in charge are more concerned with their power and reputation. I've worked in organizations that were willing to spend hundreds of thousands defending themselves rather that admit they were wrong and pay out 20K.

I'm not saying this accounts for it but it certainly removes "it makes no sense" from the list of reasons.
 
Alydar said:
It makes some sense.

ESPN would do it because they have to bid on a new wcbb contract and the first one that's just for wcbb. They want it as cheap as possible.

As for NCAA, they are still trying to defend the discrepancy between the men and women and saying they lose millions every year aids in creating that perception. It might hurt them for the next contract but the people in charge are more concerned with their power and reputation. I've worked in organizations that were willing to spend hundreds of thousands defending themselves rather that admit they were wrong and pay out 20K.

I'm not saying this accounts for it but it certainly removes "it makes no sense" from the list of reasons.
Expand ...
Respectfully, not so much. Just because you can imagine a reason doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s accurate, or even logical.

ESPN effectively sets the price for the tournament because there are no other bidders who can bid them up. And the notion that the NCAA would take less money for the women’s tournament to save face, is a flawed one, in my opinion. I don’t know what organization you worked for, but I hope they weren’t public companies. That’s pretty egregious mismanagement, if accurate.
 
Here is a link to the gender equity review that was released last August.
ncaagenderequityreview.com

Report - NCAA Gender Review

The NCAA retained the law firm of Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP (“KHF”) to conduct a comprehensive and thorough external review of gender equity issues in connection with the NCAA, focusing on NCAA championships. The initial focus of this review was on women’s and men’s basketball and the gender...
ncaagenderequityreview.com ncaagenderequityreview.com

www.npr.org

A Report Found The NCAA Undervalues Women's Basketball, Prioritizes Men's Teams

Women's basketball teams have been snubbed and underfunded by the NCAA for years, according to an external review.
www.npr.org www.npr.org

Current TV contract expires after 2023-2024 season.

Before this year the NCAA wouldn't let the women's basketball tournament to use 'March Madness' in marketing.
 
Last edited:
CL82 said:
Thank you for the two links to articles about last year‘s NCAA tournament disparities between the treatment of female and male athletes. Neither one of the articles gives any support for the proposition that ESPN in the NCAA are colluding to make the finances of the woman’s tournaments look artificially bad.
Expand ...
How much do you think the reason why the women's game is losing 2.8 million is because they are linked with 23 other National Championships? Now take the fact that the contract is for $500,000,000.00 over 14 years and spread out to 24 championships. Now the article states that the women's basketball championship gets 15.9% allocated from the NCAA. That's $79,500,000.00 over 14 years, that comes out to $5,678,571.43 per year. I'm willing to bet you that if they took the women's tournament and did it as a standalone there would be a major network be it NBC, Fox or even ESPN that would be willing to pay a lot more then 5+ million dollars. I also happened to notice that no where did the NCAA state how much do the other championships get or any other breakdowns, just the women's basketball.
 
dabears17 said:
Here is a link to the gender equity review that was released last August.
ncaagenderequityreview.com

Report - NCAA Gender Review

The NCAA retained the law firm of Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP (“KHF”) to conduct a comprehensive and thorough external review of gender equity issues in connection with the NCAA, focusing on NCAA championships. The initial focus of this review was on women’s and men’s basketball and the gender...
ncaagenderequityreview.com ncaagenderequityreview.com

www.npr.org

A Report Found The NCAA Undervalues Women's Basketball, Prioritizes Men's Teams

Women's basketball teams have been snubbed and underfunded by the NCAA for years, according to an external review.
www.npr.org www.npr.org
Expand ...
Thank you for finding this for me. Maybe this will educate @CL82 a little.
 
CL82 said:
Respectfully, not so much. Just because you can imagine a reason doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s accurate, or even logical.

ESPN effectively sets the price for the tournament because there are no other bidders who can bid them up. And the notion that the NCAA would take less money for the women’s tournament to save face, is a flawed one, in my opinion. I don’t know what organization you worked for, but I hope they weren’t public companies. That’s pretty egregious mismanagement, if accurate.
Expand ...

I like accuracy. Remember your post that I responded to. You said it "made zero sense". Well I may have been speculating but it was a reason. It may be less likely than other speculation but it wasn't "zero sense"

Where did you get the facts to say that no other media entity has the resources to compete with ESPN. How does CBS have the men's tournament?

As for the organizations I worked for, most were public and I saw it happen too many times in all but one of them I spent only a short time in. It's amazing how petty and vindictive some people become when they get in a position of authority they are only marginally qualified to fill. And in public employment that is common in mid-management and upper management where other factors than ability decide who gets the job.
 
shiverz45 said:
Will the committee use the resume or the eye test (when healthy) where they place UConn? It is too many reasons not to put UConn in the Greensboro region. For the growth of the game and economics are the two biggest.
Expand ...
For the life of me I can’t see them in Greensboro.
 
I find it very hard to believe the Ncaa says let's lose money so let's do everything in our power to make the women's tournament irrelevant. Say what you want about them, they are here to make money. As far as the title being added to the women "March Madness" seems lame and forced to me. That won't make a single impact in selling or people tuning in. People want to buy and watch a product that is of good quality, the name makes no impact.
 
Alydar said:
I like accuracy. Remember your post that I responded to. You said it "made zero sense". Well I may have been speculating but it was a reason. It may be less likely than other speculation but it wasn't "zero sense"
Expand ...
I like accuracy as well. It is different than speculation.
 
dabears17 said:
Here is a link to the gender equity review that was released last August.
ncaagenderequityreview.com

Report - NCAA Gender Review

The NCAA retained the law firm of Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP (“KHF”) to conduct a comprehensive and thorough external review of gender equity issues in connection with the NCAA, focusing on NCAA championships. The initial focus of this review was on women’s and men’s basketball and the gender...
ncaagenderequityreview.com ncaagenderequityreview.com

www.npr.org

A Report Found The NCAA Undervalues Women's Basketball, Prioritizes Men's Teams

Women's basketball teams have been snubbed and underfunded by the NCAA for years, according to an external review.
www.npr.org www.npr.org

Current TV contract expires after 2023-2024 season.

Before this year the NCAA wouldn't let the women's basketball tournament to use 'March Madness' in marketing.
Expand ...
Thanks for getting this. I hadn't seen it before.

Highly recommend people wade through this. It is interesting. Here's a quick summary as regards the issues in this thread:

1. There is no evidence, allegation or even suggestion that ESPN is colluding with the NCAA to devalue the NCAA women's tournament.

2. The value of the men's tournament (which includes the rights to the woman's tournament) is a staggering $1.1 billion dollars, which I believe is the amount that CBS pays for the broadcast rights.

3. CBS sells the rights to the woman's tournament to ESPN for $34 million dollars. That is by definition the fair market value for the tournament (e.g. the price that a willing seller will sell to a willing buyer, both being reasonable knowledgeable of facts and circumstances as of a given date.)

4. Accordingly the value of the fair market value of the men's tournament is equal to $1.066B. ($1.1B - $34M).

5. A consultant in the report estimates that the value of the woman's tournament might be worth as high as $81M to $111M. I have a little trouble with that estimate because if presumes that the CBS is leaving $47M to $77M on the table. It's possible, but in my experience the amount that actually changes hands better knowledgeable parties not under duress is a better indicator that an outside consultant estimate. Not always, but typically.

6. So if we for the moment assume that the consultant is correct and use his highest estimated value, the NCAA women's basket tournament is worth about 10 cents on the dollar the value of the men's tournament.

That's quick and dirty analysis. Strongly recommend that people read the report. It's long but interesting.

@MSGRET
 
Vowelguy said:
No
UConns best win is Tenn. best road win is creighton. That’s not going to cut it to be a 1.

SC, Stan, and NCSt/Lou winner get a 1.
The last one goes to NCSt/Lou loser, Baylor, or Michigan.
Expand ...
You may be right in terms on what the committee may do, but Vegas knows the favorites to win it all. SC 1. UConn 2. Some lines have Stanford 2 and UConn 3. No one else close. Large drop after these 3. As long as these 3 teams are in different regions, heavy odds that this is 3/4 of the final 4. Can anyone (other than the committee) disagree with this assessment.
 
For the companies that want to market to the women's tournament the use of the March Madness logo makes money for the NCAA and the tournament itself, so it does make an impact. The men's game has been making millions each year, so every little bit helps with the women's.
jchuskie said:
I find it very hard to believe the Ncaa says let's lose money so let's do everything in our power to make the women's tournament irrelevant. Say what you want about them, they are here to make money. As far as the title being added to the women "March Madness" seems lame and forced to me. That won't make a single impact in selling or people tuning in. People want to buy and watch a product that is of good quality, the name makes no impact.
Expand ...
 
MSGRET said:
For the companies that want to market to the women's tournament the use of the March Madness logo makes money for the NCAA and the tournament itself, so it does make an impact. The men's game has been making millions each year, so every little bit helps with the women's.
Expand ...
I really hope you don't think that's why they make money, they make money cause the tournament is fun, casuals even tune in when they don't all season for cbb. They could change the name tomorrow and it still would be the same popularity.
 
jchuskie said:
I really hope you don't think that's why they make money, they make money cause the tournament is fun, casuals even tune in when they don't all season for cbb. They could change the name tomorrow and it still would be the same popularity.
Expand ...
I wouldn't know, I stopped watching the men's game in years. I think the last men's tournament game I watched was when Lon Kruger was coaching UNLV. Got tired of the too much above the rim game, also don't like 20 minute half's. The men's game needs to go to quarters like every other type of basketball in the rest of the World. I only watch the women's college games and every once in a while a WNBA game. Geno reminds me of some of Tark the Sharks teams, hard defense turning into fast offense. Any advertiser that uses the March Madness logo in their ads, pays a royalty fee, so yes they do make money off of it.
 
CL82 said:
3. CBS sells the rights to the woman's tournament to ESPN for $34 million dollars. That is by definition the fair market value for the tournament (e.g. the price that a willing seller will sell to a willing buyer ...

@MSGRET
Expand ...
So let's think about what that $34 million figure means. That is just what ESPN pays for the right to broadcast the women's tournament. On top of that, ESPN has to pay the production costs of doing that -- announcers, camera crews, and the travel expenses for them. So (assuming that ESPN is a rational profit-maximizing business enterprise), ESPN must be able to charge advertisers, in aggregate, substantially MORE than $34 million in order to recover its costs and make a profit. If ESPN couldn't do that, it would bid less than $34 million for the rights, or wouldn't bid at all.

So what does it mean to say that the women's tournament loses money? Not for CBS or ESPN, apparently. The NCAA itself does pay the travel expenses of the participating teams, and it does some of its own advertising. Its only direct revenue that is clearly attributable to women's basketball is the ticket sales at the venues, and perhaps what the venues themselves pay to the NCAA to host the tournament. I guess it's possible that this direct revenue is less than its direct expenses, and on that basis it could claim to be "losing money".

But the flaw in this argument is that it doesn't give the women's tournament credit for any portion of the $1.1 billion that it receives for the package of both the men's and women's tournaments. CBS pays that lump sum fee, and then sells off the women's tournament for $34 million, but the NCAA doesn't see that revenue so it doesn't get factored into the profit/loss picture for the women's tournament from the NCAA's point of view.

In the future, if the women's tournament is "unbundled" from the men's tournament and the NCAA sells the rights to it separately, then it will be easier to determine if the women's tournament is profitable for the NCAA as well as for the broadcaster. But the underlying economics won't have changed. Some business (either the NCAA, CBS, or ESPN) is making millions from the women's tournament, or they wouldn't be paying what they are paying to broadcast it.
 
JoePgh said:
So let's think about what that $34 million figure means. That is just what ESPN pays for the right to broadcast the women's tournament. On top of that, ESPN has to pay the production costs of doing that -- announcers, camera crews, and the travel expenses for them. So (assuming that ESPN is a rational profit-maximizing business enterprise), ESPN must be able to charge advertisers, in aggregate, substantially MORE than $34 million in order to recover its costs and make a profit. If ESPN couldn't do that, it would bid less than $34 million for the rights, or wouldn't bid at all.

So what does it mean to say that the women's tournament loses money? Not for CBS or ESPN, apparently. The NCAA itself does pay the travel expenses of the participating teams, and it does some of its own advertising. Its only direct revenue that is clearly attributable to women's basketball is the ticket sales at the venues, and perhaps what the venues themselves pay to the NCAA to host the tournament. I guess it's possible that this direct revenue is less than its direct expenses, and on that basis it could claim to be "losing money".

But the flaw in this argument is that it doesn't give the women's tournament credit for any portion of the $1.1 billion that it receives for the package of both the men's and women's tournaments. CBS pays that lump sum fee, and then sells off the women's tournament for $34 million, but the NCAA doesn't see that revenue so it doesn't get factored into the profit/loss picture for the women's tournament from the NCAA's point of view.

In the future, if the women's tournament is "unbundled" from the men's tournament and the NCAA sells the rights to it separately, then it will be easier to determine if the women's tournament is profitable for the NCAA as well as for the broadcaster. But the underlying economics won't have changed. Some business (either the NCAA, CBS, or ESPN) is making millions from the women's tournament, or they wouldn't be paying what they are paying to broadcast it.
Expand ...
(Sorry I wanted to quote each part of post directly but I can’t get it to work. I’ll paraphrase you, if it’s not perfect please understand it’s not intentional.)

1. “The woman’s tournament rights must be more than $34 million ESPN pays for them because ESPN wouldn’t buy them unless they can make a profit this argument is flawed. Because it disregards the investment of the broadcast partner. The broadcast rates are worth $34 million because that is the price that two unrelated, informed parties decided that they were worth. The notion that ESPN can take those rights and make something more valuable out of them doesn’t change that. If I buy a pound of sugar for $2.50 and use that to make 100 candies that I can sell for $10, that doesn’t mean that the pound of sugar is worth $10, it’s only worth the $2.50.

2. “What does it mean that the NCAA woman’s basketball tournament loses money?” It means that the expenses of the tournaments exceed the revenue that the NCAA receives for it.

3. “The floor in this argument is that it doesn’t give the woman’s tournament any credit for the $1.1 billion that the NCAA receives for both the men’s and women’s tournaments combined.“ that’s incorrect. If CBS buys the rights to both for $1.1 billion and then sells the rights to the woman’s tournaments for $34 million then the allocation of the $1.1 billion is $1.066 billion for the men’s tournament and $34 million for the women’s tournament.

4. “Someone must be making millions of dollars from the women’s tournaments because it’s being broadcast.” I’m sure it’s profitable for ESPN to broadcast it otherwise they wouldn’t. Whether or not it’s millions of dollars, I don’t know from the information we have at hand. But remember, again, that doesn’t mean that the tournament rates are worth more than they are sold for. ESPN adds value by virtue of its own brand its production skills in production costs in the value of its personnel, and the value of its promotion. Those are the ingredients that ESPN adds to the “sugar“ of women’s tournament rights to make its candy.

5. I absolutely agree it will be easier to determine the revenue earned by the women’s tournament if it was sold separately. The fact that it isn’t, in all likelihood, means that selling it separately doesn’t generate more revenue to the NCAA.
 
Stymie said:
So...since the last prognostication, UCONN clobbers 3 opponents by an average score of around 82-40 (coulda been more) and gets slid down and out of town.
Really?
HaHaHaHaHa
Expand ...
again don't shoot the messenger, but it's the big east. There is nothing gained by beating these teams by 50+. Creighton is the only other team going in, Depaul is now in the first 4 out. Meanwhile other bubble teams will get opportunities in the conference tournaments to help their resume. Unless Depaul wins the Big East tournament, they are missing the tournament.
 
Plebe said:
The NET also has North Carolina at #6 and BYU at #8. Does that mean they should be 2 seeds?

Folks ought to quit obsessing over the NET ranking because it doesn't determine seedings.
Expand ...

Not arguing here but I have a question:

The NCAA also takes into account "The Injury Factor." Which means UCONN has lost three of it's core players in each of 4 of the 5 games UCONN has lost (one of which was the NPOY from the year before).

If you (The NCAA) are going to take injuries into account, and with a team this battered by them, am I wrong to assume that I'm not being bias in logically assuming that the single most dominant/important factor to use for UCONN in determining seeding would be NET Rankings?

I mean there wasn't just one injury. For UCONN it's been a constant steady stream of injuries to top tier players. Every one of the losses there were injuries (but even tossing the SC game aside) - the other 4 losses were significant injuries to three core players (One is the former NPOY) per game. It seems the criteria of Net Ranking would be the absolute best to use in this instance because it can still "calculate" "Quality."

It's not fair to South Carolina. UCONN is sort of playing with house money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
295
Guests online
5,240
Total visitors
5,535
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
163,995
Messages
4,377,922
Members
10,169
Latest member
ctfb19382


.
..
Top Bottom