NCAA expanding tournament to 96?

[star2city]

Sports Business Journal: NCAA tourney to 96?

Seattle PI blog

The story, citing industry sources, says the NCAA is considering expanding the field to 96 teams, possibly as soon as 2011. CBS's current broadcasting contract expires after the 2010 Final Four, and the NCAA will be shopping the rights, and a potential format change, next summer.

A move to cable

[jodcon]

I would honestly have to be against that, I don't think there's ever been a #16 seed beating a #1 seed, and not many #15's beating #2's, so I don't think it would really add any credibility to the tourney to add another 30 teams who really don't deserve to be there in the first place just for the sake of making a few bucks.

Oh wait...I forgot it's all about the money...

I guess that would be the end of the NIT also huh?

[star2city]

I would honestly have to be against that, I don't think there's ever been a #16 seed beating a #1 seed, and not many #15's beating #2's, so I don't think it would really add any credibility to the tourney to add another 30 teams who really don't deserve to be there in the first place just for the sake of making a few bucks.

Oh wait...I forgot it's all about the money...

I guess that would be the end of the NIT also huh?

The #16 seeds are really like #150 to #250 in RPI. There are a slew of 40-70 RPI teams that would now get in. So, the Big East, instead of getting eight teams in, would get 13 or 14.

With this system, the current #16 seeds, would become #24 seeds, and would face the #9 seed in the preliminary round. NIT level teams would get seeds #16 and #17, with the right to face a regional #1. The likelihood of #1 teams being knocked out goes way up with the system, as the tournament becomes much more of a crapshoot.

[MplsBison]

Anything that cold help the Summit get two into the MBB tournament gets rubber stamped by me.

[jodcon]

The #16 seeds are really like #150 to #250 in RPI. There are a slew of 40-70 RPI teams that would now get in. So, the Big East, instead of getting eight teams in, would get 13 or 14.

With this system, the current #16 seeds, would become #24 seeds, and would face the #9 seed in the preliminary round. NIT level teams would get seeds #16 and #17, with the right to face a regional #1. The likelihood of #1 teams being knocked out goes way up with the system, as the tournament becomes much more of a crapshoot.

It would make for a better 2nd round no doubt, but would you really watch the 1st round to see if the 11th place Big East team can beat the Champion of a conference you've hardly ever heard of? I honestly don't think I would, I just wouldn't care that much unless it was a team that I followed.

I guess the argument is you should want the best teams to have a shot at the championship, but the great thing about the Big Dance is seeing those Snow White underdogs find their way into the Sweet 16, and adding another round will probably make it almost impossible for a small school to get to that point.

But like I said, it's really all about the money.

[The Sicatoka]

Heck, why play a regular season at all?

Put all the teams into a monster double-elimination tournament.

Seed them by the luck of the draw.

It makes as much sense as anything else.

[homer]

Anything that cold help the Summit get two into the MBB tournament gets rubber stamped by me.

Would you even consider the first round part of the tournament? Are they going to hand out participation ribbons to everyone as well? The NCAA just cares about the almighty dollar.

One of the excuses for no playoff in football is missing class time. So what will we do for basketball, we will have 32 more teams miss class time. Is Gene Taylor the head of the NCAA? This makes no sense to me. Why fix what isn't broken?

[MplsBison]

Heck, why play a regular season at all?

Put all the teams into a monster double-elimination tournament.

Seed them by the luck of the draw.

It makes as much sense as anything else.

Minnesota high school football plays a full regular season and then every single team gets at least one game in the section playoffs.

Not saying this should be done for NCAA DI MBB....but it wouldn't be impossible.

[MplsBison]

Would you even consider the first round part of the tournament? Are they going to hand out participation ribbons to everyone as well? The NCAA just cares about the almighty dollar.

One of the excuses for no playoff in football is missing class time. So what will we do for basketball, we will have 32 more teams miss class time. Is Gene Taylor the head of the NCAA? This makes no sense to me. Why fix what isn't broken?

You'd get twice the pay-out from the tournament if you get two teams. And the first rounds are played on weekends, right?

[homer]

You'd get twice the pay-out from the tournament if you get two teams. And the first rounds are played on weekends, right?

They will still travel on a weekday. It will take away some of the prestige of making the tournament when almost all teams from the Big East, ACC, Big Ten get in. It will still be nice for the small teams but now they will just have to play to get into the main part of the tournament. Win the summit, get into a play in game. That sucks.

[Shawn-O]

Minnesota high school football plays a full regular season and then every single team gets at least one game in the section playoffs.

Not saying this should be done for NCAA DI MBB....but it wouldn't be impossible.

The conference tournaments already provide every DI MBB program with a shot at all the marbles in essence. I really hope they leave it how it is, I'm sure they will eventually expand to at least 68.

[MplsBison]

The conference tournaments already provide every DI MBB program with a shot at all the marbles in essence. I really hope they leave it how it is, I'm sure they will eventually expand to at least 68.

I don't think every conference tourny lets all the teams in.

But I'm not suggesting that every DI MBB program should get a shot anyway.

[MplsBison]

They will still travel on a weekday. It will take away some of the prestige of making the tournament when almost all teams from the Big East, ACC, Big Ten get in. It will still be nice for the small teams but now they will just have to play to get into the main part of the tournament. Win the summit, get into a play in game. That sucks.

I don't see it as a big deal. It gets more Summit teams in and more money for the conference. One extra weekend...big deal.

Making the tourny won't lose any prestige.

For the record: "because it's good enough as it is" is NEVER, EVER a legitimate reason to not attempt to improve something.

[homer]

I don't see it as a big deal. It gets more Summit teams in and more money for the conference. One extra weekend...big deal.

Making the tourny won't lose any prestige.

For the record: "because it's good enough as it is" is NEVER, EVER a legitimate reason to not attempt to improve something.

Well in that case they may as well let everyone in. Than the NCAA will NEVER, EVER have to improve it again.

[MplsBison]

Well in that case they may as well let everyone in. Than the NCAA will NEVER, EVER have to improve it again.

No, they shouldn't let every team in the tournament. But they should let more than 65 teams in.

[jodcon]

I don't think every conference tourny lets all the teams in.

But I'm not suggesting that every DI MBB program should get a shot anyway.

Actually all but one conference gives their tournament champion the automatic bid (30 of them to be exact), the Ivy League still gives the auto berth to their regular season champion. So in essence every team in the country, even if they haven't won a game all year, has a shot come tourney time to make the field of 65, and with that a chance to win the National Championship.

Based on that alone, I don't see any reason to give anybody who cannot get an at-large bid another chance when they already had their last ditch chance in the conference tournament.

But, and I know this is getting old, it's all about the $$money$$ for the NCAA, and if more teams pencils out to more cash, it will probably happen.

[MplsBison]

Actually all but one conference gives their tournament champion the automatic bid (30 of them to be exact), the Ivy League still gives the auto berth to their regular season champion. So in essence every team in the country, even if they haven't won a game all year, has a shot come tourney time to make the field of 65, and with that a chance to win the National Championship.

Based on that alone, I don't see any reason to give anybody who cannot get an at-large bid another chance when they already had their last ditch chance in the conference tournament.

But, and I know this is getting old, it's all about the $money$ for the NCAA, and if more teams pencils out to more cash, it will probably happen.

But not all of the 30 conference tournaments let every team in the conference go to the conference tournament.

[jodcon]

But not all of the 30 conference tournaments let every team in the conference go to the conference tournament.

That is true, some conferences with odd-numbered teams either have play-in games or eliminate the last place team, so I guess not every single team has a chance. But I guess the counter to that would be if you're not good enough to even MAKE IT to your CONFERENCE tournament, you have no right to be considered for the national tournament.

Anyway, I like the NCAA Tournament the way it is, I'd like to see it stay at 65-68 teams, but if they change it...whatever...it'll still be better then the FBS mess.

[MplsBison]

That is true, some conferences with odd-numbered teams either have play-in games or eliminate the last place team, so I guess not every single team has a chance. But I guess the counter to that would be if you're not good enough to even MAKE IT to your CONFERENCE tournament, you have no right to be considered for the national tournament.

Anyway, I like the NCAA Tournament the way it is, I'd like to see it stay at 65-68 teams, but if they change it...whatever...it'll still be better then the FBS mess.

Well then, if the regular season is so important as to decide which teams should and should not to the conference tournaments, then why have any post season tournaments at all? Let the team with the best record after the regular season be crowned the national champion via polls and rankings.

So obviously you see the argument goes both ways.

I think it's clear, however, that people want some sort of tournament to decide the national championship and that not every single team in NCAA DI MBB should get to be in that tournament. Then, making a logical case for 32, 64 or 96 is rather moot. It comes down to a personal opinion about which number of teams is "best".

And as such, my personal opinion is that 96 is "best" as it gives the conference the best chance to get more than a single team in and the additional "slice of the pie" money that comes with that.

[82SiouxGuy]

Well then, if the regular season is so important as to decide which teams should and should not to the conference tournaments, then why have any post season tournaments at all? Let the team with the best record after the regular season be crowned the national champion via polls and rankings.

So obviously you see the argument goes both ways.

I think it's clear, however, that people want some sort of tournament to decide the national championship and that not every single team in NCAA DI MBB should get to be in that tournament. Then, making a logical case for 32, 64 or 96 is rather moot. It comes down to a personal opinion about which number of teams is "best".

And as such, my personal opinion is that 96 is "best" as it gives the conference the best chance to get more than a single team in and the additional "slice of the pie" money that comes with that.

They may get another slice of the pie, but each slice is going to be smaller. It's possible that the total pie going to a conference like the Summit could be smaller than it is now depending on how the distribution is set up and if a new TV contract would pay that much more or not.

[MplsBison]

They may get another slice of the pie, but each slice is going to be smaller. It's possible that the total pie going to a conference like the Summit could be smaller than it is now depending on how the distribution is set up and if a new TV contract would pay that much more or not.

I think whoever wants the tournament the worst (probably ESPN) is going to have to pay at least enough more to guarantee that each of the 96 teams gets the same sized slice as each of the 65 teams was getting previously.

The NCAA should negotiate for that, at a minimum. But I think they could still get more. People go crazy for March Madness.

[82SiouxGuy]

I think whoever wants the tournament the worst (probably ESPN) is going to have to pay at least enough more to guarantee that each of the 96 teams gets the same sized slice as each of the 65 teams was getting previously.

The NCAA should negotiate for that, at a minimum. But I think they could still get more. People go crazy for March Madness.

The ratings for more early round games are not going to be as good as for the games from the Sweet Sixteen on. Rights fees for those earlier round games will probably not be as much as they are right now per game. Early round games will be worth less to the networks, and therefore the schools playing in those games will get less.

[The Sicatoka]

What's worth more in national TV ratings?

- a "round of 96" game between Moose Guts Tech and West Crawdaddy State, or

- a quarter-final (opening round) ACC game between Wake Forest and North Carolina State.

That will also play into this process.

[MplsBison]

The ratings for more early round games are not going to be as good as for the games from the Sweet Sixteen on. Rights fees for those earlier round games will probably not be as much as they are right now per game. Early round games will be worth less to the networks, and therefore the schools playing in those games will get less.

You're probably right about lower ratings, but that's not how it works.

The network pays X dollars to show the entire tournament. Then the NCAA divides up the amount it gives to schools by 96.

[82SiouxGuy]

You're probably right about lower ratings, but that's not how it works.

The network pays X dollars to show the entire tournament. Then the NCAA divides up the amount it gives to schools by 96.

First, how do you think the network decides what they can afford to pay? They try to predict ratings so they can figure out what to charge for advertising. They don't pay a flat fee per game they are going to broadcast. So the networks will pay a lower fee per game to broadcast the new games added in a 96 team tournament.

And the NCAA doesn't just split the fee by the number of schools. The explanation below is from Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, but I believe it is a fairly accurate explanation of how the money is disbursed. The tournament 1/2 of the money will be more in a 96 team tournament but there will be a lot more shares taken out of the pot with extra teams and extra wins being rewarded. If you add it up, unless the Summit representatives start winning games in the tournament, which is still doubtful most years, the money for 1 and done will probably be less in a 96 team tournament.

Revenues

The Division I Men's Basketball tournament is the only NCAA championship tournament (officially, the BCS Football Championship is not an NCAA event) where the NCAA does not keep the profits. Instead, the money from the multi-billion-dollar television contract is divided among the Division I basketball playing schools and conferences as follows:[16]

* 1/6 of the money goes directly to the schools based on how many sports they play (one "share" for each sport starting with 14, which is the minimum needed for Division I membership).

* 1/3 of the money goes directly to the schools based on how many scholarships they give out (one share for each of the first 50, two for each of the next 50, ten for each of the next 50, and 20 for each scholarship above 150).

* 1/2 of the money goes to the conferences based on how well they did in the six previous men's basketball tournaments (counting each year separately, one share for each team getting in, and one share for each win except in the Final Four and, prior to the 2008 tournament, the Play-in game). In 2007, based on the 2001 through 2006 tournaments, the Big East received over $14.85 million, while the eight conferences that did not win a first-round game in those six years received slightly more than $1 million each.[17]