[Cracked Sidewalks] The NCAA Tournament Must Expand or Die

[brewcity77]

Without expansion, the NCAA Tournament won't survive beyond its current 2032 contract. Today we look at the economics supporting that claim, what the ideal expansion number is, and what it would look like in practice.

The NCAA Tournament Must Expand or Die

[The Sultan]

Well done and I agree wholeheartedly.

[Shooter McGavin]

You may have answered this in the article and I missed it but if the expansion occurred immediately would the NCAA have the ability to immediately renegotiate the contract?  Waiting til 2032 seems perilous for non p4 schools.

[The Sultan]

You may have answered this in the article and I missed it but if the expansion occurred immediately would the NCAA have the ability to immediately renegotiate the contract?  Waiting til 2032 seem perilous for non p4 schools.

No. The media partners have no incentive to do this. They are paying a grossly underpaid amount because the NCAA incompetantly negotiated it.

[Shooter McGavin]

Thanks. was hoping there would be an out clause or an expansion clause.  More content, more money.  But we will have to wait. 

Really hope the breakaway does not occur. My love for this game will go down the toilet. Schools like MU will suffer. 

Would there be any legal recourse?  Monopoly?

[CountryRoads]

The article mentioned several times the percentage of teams included. IMO, there are way too many D1 teams now. Cutting the bottom 100 would do a lot of good in a number of ways. Do that and 25% is roughly 68.

I'd like to see the play-in format changed so that it's just the lowest ranked teams that are playing. Right now it's bottom 4 teams and last 4 at larges. Just put the bottom 8 in that compete for the 16 seeds. It makes the 64 field more competitive. Those 2 games with the last four at larges are always terrible anyway. It's annoying for people who do brackets also.

[CountryRoads]

Without expansion, the NCAA Tournament won't survive beyond its current 2032 contract. Today we look at the economics supporting that claim, what the ideal expansion number is, and what it would look like in practice.

The NCAA Tournament Must Expand or Die

Also, thank you for this:

The First Four games will be played at the same sites as the Rounds of 64 and 32. Dayton will no longer host all First Four games.

I bring this up every time NCAA changes come up and am always ripped for it as people love those games in Dayton for some reason.

[DFW HOYA]

It could also contract to 54-58, for many of the same reasons.

[Scoop Snoop]

Thanks. was hoping there would be an out clause or an expansion clause.  More content, more money.  But we will have to wait. 

Really hope the breakaway does not occur. My love for this game will go down the toilet. Schools like MU will suffer. 

Would there be any legal recourse? Monopoly?

I've wondered about that before, with the 4 big conferences looking like a monopoly collectively. College basketball is a very large business, so it is reasonable to pose the question.

I think one of the reasons this will not happen is the eagerness of DC politicians to protect the status of their state's team(s). I know that challenges to mergers and monopolistic corporate entities do not fall under the authority of congress directly, but I cannot see any eagerness on the part of federal authorities to reign in the Big Four conferences without broad support in congress.

[Uncle Rico]

I've wondered about that before, with the 4 big conferences looking like a monopoly collectively. College basketball is a very large business, so at first glance it is reasonable to pose the question.

I think one of the reasons this will not happen is the eagerness of DC politicians to protect the status of their state's team(s). I know that challenges to mergers and monopolistic corporate entities do not fall under the authority of congress directly, but I cannot see any eagerness on the part of federal authorities to reign in the Big Four conferences.

The federal government will be very active in college athletics over the next four years. 

[Billy Hoyle]

I've wondered about that before, with the 4 big conferences looking like a monopoly collectively. College basketball is a very large business, so it is reasonable to pose the question.

I think one of the reasons this will not happen is the eagerness of DC politicians to protect the status of their state's team(s). I know that challenges to mergers and monopolistic corporate entities do not fall under the authority of congress directly, but I cannot see any eagerness on the part of federal authorities to reign in the Big Four conferences without broad support in congress.

this is not a political comment, but the incoming administration is very supportive of the NCAA getting the anti-trust exemption they need to stave off all of the BS lawsuits preventing them from enforcing their bylaws (Senator Cruz has been publicly supportive of moving this forward).

[brewcity77]

You may have answered this in the article and I missed it but if the expansion occurred immediately would the NCAA have the ability to immediately renegotiate the contract?  Waiting til 2032 seems perilous for non p4 schools.

They don't have to, but they would likely renegotiate to add teams. So going to 72, 76, or 80 would likely come with a revenue increase at the current rate (roughly 5.9% increase for every 4 teams added).

That's essentially what Fox did with UConn rejoining the Big East.

As far as full renegotiation, that will almost certainly have to wait until the 2032 deadline is closer.

[UWW2MU]

The entire premise of this article is completely off base.   None of this is inevitable and treating it so only causes us to ignore the real problems in college sports like conference alignment, funding, inequities, NIL free for all, etc.

acknowledging the reality that the NCAA Tournament needs to provide more profit to the high-major leagues to remain viable

Why??  They have plenty of revenue streams.  Because they'll pull out of the tournament and ruin it?  They'd ruin it anyway by expanding this big.

Sankey has also called for the NCAA to stop "giving away" bids to small conference teams. ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips, Big 10 Commissioner Tony Pettiti, and Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark have all called for expansion. And while in 1985 the top-6 leagues (including Big East and Pac-12) had 55 combined teams the current P4 are comprised of 68 teams.

So what??  The P5 at various levels have created a system of imbalance and inequity and they want to now use that inequity as an excuse to prop up the behemoths they've created and strip the opportunities from the little guys?  I call BS on that.  Let them figure it out.



P4 vs P4 games get the best ratings, but the Cinderella's and upsets drive the narratives that make the overall audience far greater than the sum of it's parts.  You lose that, the whole thing will sink.  Same reason p4 striking on their own will not work.  I don't think they'll try it and if they do they'll ruin march for everyone... but again, so would a hugely expanded tournament.



And why are we comparing major league sports to NCAAB?  It is NOT the same thing.  Besides, during those periods, the major league sports added content (which yes I know is the point of this discussion, but they didn't create new content, it already existed, just wasn't broadcast the same)

This is all BS and a money grab by the big conferences.  It's time they look at real solutions to put a stop to this, which likely means either people stop watching or government starts looking at this from an anti-trust perspective.

[K1 Lover]

I skimmed through since I don't have time to read all of it at the moment, but there's one thing I'm curious about and not sure if it was discussed.

How would tournament expansion ultimately affect (or not affect) the non-power leagues? Would expansion benefit them in any way at all? It's obviously going to be in great favor of high-majors, and understandably so. But I'm wondering what further consequences this will have on the gap between us and mid-majors, and therefore the CBB sphere as a whole.

Edit: To clarify, I know expansion is going to be bad for the mid-majors. But my question is, how bad? And will it ever get to a point where it negatively impacts everyone else too?

[Badgerhater]

How would tournament expansion ultimately affect (or not affect) the non-power leagues? Would expansion benefit them in any way at all? It's obviously going to be in great favor of high-majors, and understandably so. But I'm wondering what further consequences this will have on the gap between us and mid-majors, and therefore the CBB sphere as a whole.

Edit: To clarify, I know expansion is going to be bad for the mid-majors. But my question is, how bad? And will it ever get to a point where it negatively impacts everyone else too?

Any expansion will just put in more Big 10 teams with 7-13 conference records and keep a mid major out that would probably beat those teams.

If there is an expansion, a new rule should be that at-large teams need a winning conference record.   Can't win more than you lose over 18 or 20 games, tough, go win your conference tournament then or stay home.

[LAZER]

I'm curious to know how TV ratings are impacted by the round the game is played in. First Round games played on Thur/Fri during the day are obviously going to draw differently than S16,E8,F4 games. And I suspect the majority of the non-P5 games are played on the first couple days.

[Billy Hoyle]

Any expansion will just put in more Big 10 teams with 7-13 conference records and keep a mid major out that would probably beat those teams.

If there is an expansion, a new rule should be that at-large teams need a winning conference record.   Can't win more than you lose over 18 or 20 games, tough, go win your conference tournament then or stay home.

In a perfect world, definitely, but with the Big Ten and SEC having all of the power and threatening to take their ball and go off on their own that will never happen.

[The Sultan]

Why should we punish teams for joining a strong conference? How does imbalanced conference schedules impact this?

[SaveOD238]

Any expansion will just put in more Big 10 teams with 7-13 conference records and keep a mid major out that would probably beat those teams.

If there is an expansion, a new rule should be that at-large teams need a winning conference record.   Can't win more than you lose over 18 or 20 games, tough, go win your conference tournament then or stay home.

I'm inclined to agree that I'd rather see a 27-4 Missouri Valley team that fell in its conference tournament over a 7-13 team from the SEC or Big 10, but those conferences wield all the power.  You might get more traction with a requirement for a .500+ OVERALL record though.  Or for another criterion that helps a dominant mid-major with a poorly timed loss (just not regular season champs...that will never fly).  But if Sankey doesn't want a record requirement, there won't be one.

I GUARANTEE there will be multiple SEC teams with losing conference records to make the tournament this year, and they will absolutely deserve to be there.

One of my favorite parts of March is actually the conference tournament week, but I wonder if a system like this might motivate some smaller conferences to forgo the conference tournament and give the auto-bid to the best team.  That would give them a better chance at a victory in the play-in round, along with the associated tournament credits

[FairWeatherEagle]

Good article. But some issues.
Don't equate the dynamics of the P4 wrt football vs basketball. Certainly money is a powerful motive in both but the dynamics of competitive play are real different. Another thing is you lump the Big East in with the non P4 masses.
Does your P4vP4,nonvP4, nonvnon ratings comparison...sure I get. But does it take into account seeding at the time or the round played or other dynamics. Like someone said, I'll watch two no name teams at 25-6 play than two .500 big ten teams.

Football makes similar mistakes when trying to expand the football playoffs. The marchmadness 

[The Sultan]

Don't equate the dynamics of the P4 wrt football vs basketball. Certainly money is a powerful motive in both but the dynamics of competitive play are real different.

The P4 doesn't care about the "dynamics of competitive play." They care about getting more money out of the NCAA tournament for their sake. They feel they drive the eyeballs so they should get more of the money.

Another thing is you lump the Big East in with the non P4 masses.

That's how the P4 views the BE off the court.

Football makes similar mistakes when trying to expand the football playoffs.

Mistakes? Playoff ratings will be huge.

[FairWeatherEagle]

Oops, last post got cut off.
Thanks for responding. I disagree with some of your underlying premises. As for expansion. I'm for it (for some different  reasons) as long as it doesn't get washed out (128 teams).

[Billy Hoyle]

Oops, last post got cut off.
Thanks for responding. I disagree with some of your underlying premises. As for expansion. I'm for it (for some different  reasons) as long as it doesn't get washed out (128 teams).

It is highly unlikely to go beyond 76. One interesting comment I saw Baker make was the window for expansion is limited because of The Masters. The Final Four cannot be pushed back further.

[The Sultan]

It is highly unlikely to go beyond 76. One interesting comment I saw Baker make was the window for expansion is limited because of The Masters. The Final Four cannot be pushed back further.

Brew's proposal wouldn't push the Final Four back.

[FairWeatherEagle]

That same point about the window was made in the article as well. But even 128 teams can be shoehorned in if the money is right. M-W all day bball!   


😁Don't let me troll you