Great Series on What Makes a Cinderella

[VUGrad1314]

Mid-Major Madness is partnering with Matt Craig, who writes about Mid-Majors for The Athletic, to deliver a series on the great Cinderella runs of the recent past. In this six-part series , Craig endeavors to explain--and does so quite skillfully and successfully--what makes a Cinderella, and why these runs may not be as shocking as we might think.

Part I: Overview. Discusses the concept of" desirable disadvantages." Sometimes things that are viewed as our biggest weaknesses, can be our greatest strength.Heavy focus on 2006 George Mason.

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/7/ ... tournament

Part II: Contrasting the traditional model of success--the one followed by the likes of Bill Self and Roy Williams--with that followed by mid major legends like Jim Larranaga, Shaka Smart, Brad Stevens, Gregg Marshall, and Porter Moser. Stresses the importance of being unconventional and thinking outside the box as keys to success at the mid major level. Heavy focus on Smart's 2011 run with VCU.

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/7/ ... -four-2011

I will update this as new installments come out. I encourage everyone to read this. The articles aren't terribly long, the breadth of information and knowledge presented and demonstrated is impressive, and the writing is fantastic.

[jsaluki080]

Mid-Major Madness is partnering with Matt Craig, who writes about Mid-Majors for The Athletic, to deliver a series on the great Cinderella runs of the recent past. In this six-part series , Craig endeavors to explain--and does so quite skillfully and successfully--what makes a Cinderella, and why these runs may not be as shocking as we might think.

Part I: Overview. Discusses the concept of" desirable disadvantages." Sometimes things that are viewed as our biggest weaknesses, can be our greatest strength.Heavy focus on 2006 George Mason.

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/7/ ... tournament

Part II: Contrasting the traditional model of success--the one followed by the likes of Bill Self and Roy Williams--with that followed by mid major legends like Jim Larranaga, Shaka Smart, Brad Stevens, Gregg Marshall, and Porter Moser. Stresses the importance of being unconventional and thinking outside the box as keys to success at the mid major level. Heavy focus on Smart's 2011 run with VCU.

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/7/ ... -four-2011

I will update this as new installments come out. I encourage everyone to read this. The articles aren't terribly long, the breadth of information and knowledge presented and demonstrated is impressive, and the writing is fantastic.

Thanks for the long read. Quite interesting.

[Jsnhbe1Birds]

Loyola made the NCAA tournament ratings higher and got more press. Why can't they see that. People would rather see more mid-majors. Nobody except specific schools care about a 19-14 team that went 8-10 in their conference and bailed out in the semis of their tournament.

[VUGrad1314]

Loyola made the NCAA tournament ratings higher and got more press. Why can't they see that. People would rather see more mid-majors. Nobody except specific schools care about a 19-14 team that went 8-10 in their conference and bailed out in the semis of their tournament.

The argument I have heard on this is that although it may help ratings (and even that is debatable since you're exchanging a large fan\alumni base for a smaller one) the low-seeded P5s actually do better than mid-majors. For every Loyola there are 2-3 2018 Kansas State 2018 Florida State and 2016 Syracuse stories. My counter argument would be that two of those are nine seeds and a mid is rarely granted a seed even that high, and there has to be some check on a team that plays 20 P5\BE games and does a mediocre job vs a school that maybe gets 3-5 such opportunities. Most mid majors that get snubbed have shown that they are capable of more than garden variety bumslaying. What do you think they could have done with 4X as many opportunities? Rasmussen's idea of wins\opportunity needs to get a bit more credence it seems.

[uniftw]

Loyola made the NCAA tournament ratings higher and got more press. Why can't they see that. People would rather see more mid-majors. Nobody except specific schools care about a 19-14 team that went 8-10 in their conference and bailed out in the semis of their tournament.

demonstrably false on the TV ratings. The press is marginally true for Loyola, and that's 1000% due to Sister Jean, not the team. The reason I call it marginally true is the big name teams have dozens of stories to cover, not just one Sister Jean. JEAN got a ton of coverage. Jean stole the headlines. Jean got the interviews. She wasn't trying to take away from the team. To the contrary I'm sure she'd rather the team have gotten every bit of her air time. From a national perspective there was very little actual coverage of Loyola's team.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/co ... tory.html#

But not everyone is on board with the little guys, whether it's Loyola this year, VCU in 2011, Butler in 2010-11 or George Mason in 2006. Because here's Cinderella's dirty little secret: Compared to the blue bloods, they generally aren't great television draws.

"From a television standpoint, you really root for the big teams," CBS Sports Chairman Sean McManus said Friday on Chris Russo's Sirius/XM show. "Last night's Kentucky outcome was not good for us and not good for TBS at all. Kentucky being the blue bloods that they are, and having the television draw that they have, that really hurt us. Kansas State winning — I have nothing against Kansas State as a school or a team — but that really hurt us."

Kentucky, which fell to Kansas State on Thursday in the Sweet 16, is indeed a good television draw. The Kentucky Wildcats' Final Four game against Wisconsin in 2015, their last appearance in the national semifinals, drew a 12.4 rating and 22.6 million viewers on TBS, TNT and truTV (all three cable networks televised the game), bigger numbers than the national title game the next season between Villanova and North Carolina (which also was on TBS, TNT and truTV) and nearly as big as last year's national championship contest between Gonzaga and North Carolina, which reached a wider audience on CBS and drew a 13.2 rating and 23 million viewers.

Games featuring Cinderellas simply can't compete in the ratings department. The 2011 Final Four game between VCU and Butler drew a 8.3 rating and 14.2 million viewers on CBS, 2.5 million fewer viewers than the Connecticut-Kentucky game that followed it. George Mason's run to the Final Four in 2006 did not provide much in the way of a ratings bump, either: It drew a 9.1 rating and 14.5 million viewers, down from the comparable game in 2005 between Illinois and Louisville.

McManus told Russo that Loyola's presence in the Final Four won't be a complete debacle for TBS, which has the Final Four and national title game this season. Chicago is a huge television market, after all. It's just not ideal (the loss of Duke, another program with a sizable television following, in the Elite Eight also won't be good for ratings).

"It's a great story, I think Sister Jean is terrific, but to have an upstart like that go this far is not a disaster obviously, but not the best of all scenarios for us," McManus said.

There are dozens of articles every single year stating the same thing. Cinderellas are great for TV through the second weekend. Once you get to the Saturday/Sunday of the second weekend every single TV exec is pulling against any cinderella/non big name. People don't tune in to watch those teams.


Here's another one from CBSSports

https://sports.cbslocal.com/2018/03/12/ncaa-tournament-cinderella-myth/

There’s only one myth that needs busting. The idea that we want Cinderella to win the whole thing. We wax romantic about VCU and George Mason — and we do love them, for about a week — then we want them gone before the Final Four. Let that glass sneaker on the court for two or three games, then let the big boys take over the party. We feel better about ourselves when we say we pine for players we don’t know, from schools we can’t find on a map. It makes us sound less snobby and aristocratic. For a week, we are one with the hardwood proletarians. But that’s about it.

It’s a dynamic that applies to all sports. Folks say they hate the Yankees and Cowboys. Maybe you’re tired of Tiger Woods. But the truth is the greatest buzz, and ratings comes from the monoliths, not the underdogs. It pains people to hear that a good Yankees team is good for baseball, that the Dallas Cowboys are good for pro football, or that Notre Dame is great for college football. But it’s true. Every major sports program is talking golf today, because Woods finished second in a tournament this weekend, shooting nine-under par, missing a birdie on the final hole to force a playoff.

In college basketball, the ratings bear it out. Two years ago, the Final Four averaged 11.7 million viewers and a 6.7 household rating, according to Nielsen. This included 10.5 million viewers for Villanova’s rout over Oklahoma, and 12.9 million for North Carolina’s victory over Syracuse.

Yet the year earlier, when Duke and Kentucky filled half the Final Four, the ratings exploded. The Kentucky-Wisconsin game averaged 28.2 million viewers, the most for a semifinal game in 19 years and the largest cable number ever for a college basketball game. The other game, Duke versus Michigan State, averaged 15.3 million viewers.

We’ll give temporary lip service to Murray State or Wright State, but if Buffalo plays Bucknell in the national championship game, the ratings will be microscopic. It won’t happen, of course. We just pretend we want it. What we really want is Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, and North Carolina. Unless your alma mater is still climbing a bracket, or you take provincial pride in your local school, then you want teams from towns that have ample banners hanging from their rafters.

[IWokeUpLikeThis]

Those articles/executives only mention bluebloods (in the brand sense) however.

UConn (Big East)
Syracuse
Duke
UNC
Kentucky
Louisville
Michigan State
Indiana
Kansas
UCLA

Throw in Villanova, Georgetown, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Florida, Texas, & Arizona and they’re hoping it’s the same 10-18 brands recycled over and over. Those are a simplified 18 brands for the casuals whose apparel can be recognized across generations in Wal-Mart.

"It's a great story, I think Sister Jean is terrific, but to have an upstart like that go this far is not a disaster obviously, but not the best of all scenarios for us," McManus said.

"From a television standpoint, you really root for the big teams," CBS Sports Chairman Sean McManus said Friday on Chris Russo's Sirius/XM show. "Last night's Kentucky outcome was not good for us and not good for TBS at all. Kentucky being the blue bloods that they are, and having the television draw that they have, that really hurt us. Kansas State winning — I have nothing against Kansas State as a school or a team — but that really hurt us."

Notice the exec slamming K-State. You don’t really hear them vouching for teams 19-75 on the P6 totem pole - just the 18 or so bluebloods.

[quote=“VUGrad1314”]the low-seeded P5s actually do better than mid-majors[/quote]

Not sure who made this argument but it’s disproven. Joe Lunardi released a study comparing low seed mid-major performance to low seed P6 performance and mid-major’s performed markedly better. (That’s from an ESPN employee — a network with significant financial P5 interests.)

Just look at the 3 11-seed’s who made the Final Four: George Mason, VCU, Loyola-Chicago.

[VUGrad1314]

Speaking of Cinderellas, here's a chance to relive Three of the greatest moments in UNI\MVC tournament history (apologies to Custer and Townes whose terrific moments didn't make it in

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/7/ ... ld-ever-do

[VUGrad1314]

Part III is here: In it, Craig discusses the need for "catalyst players" guys that just make things happen and make teammates better. They are leaders and may even have the ability to be stars but don't necessarily relish the role\attention. The more of these players you have, the better. Balanced attacks are harder to gameplan against on short notice, which aids these teams come tournament time. Note the difference in Florida's experience playing Jimmer Fredette's BYU team vs. Butler. Heavy focus on Butler--especially their second run to the Finals in 2011 keyed by Matt Howard. Also of note is Jim Larranaga's considerable influence on "The Butler Way" despite having no affiliation with Butler.

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/7/ ... ns-hayward

[VUGrad1314]

Part 4 of Cinderella Code is out. Heavy focus on Wichita State. In this installment, Craig discusses the notion of FBS football as a money pit outside the P5, and that the lack of football is a desirable disadvantage that can help fuel basketball success. His formula? Proximity to major city+Institutional commitment-football= potential for success. This might prove instructive in membership decisions the MVC makes in the future.

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/7/ ... final-four

[VUGrad1314]

Part V focuses on the psychology of cinderella runs why the underdog is able to perform so well in the clutch. Heavy focus on Loyola. Give it a read.

https://www.midmajormadness.com/2018/8/ ... ton-custer