NCAA expanding tournament to 96?

[MplsBison]

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.

And I'm saying that the NCAA will need to negotiate with networks for a bigger TV contract such that the 1/2 from the new 96-team contract will guarantee that each "share" will not decrease in value from a "share" based on the previous 65-team contract.

[star2city]

And I'm saying that the NCAA will need to negotiate with networks for a bigger TV contract such that the 1/2 from the new 96-team contract will guarantee that each "share" will not decrease in value from a "share" based on the previous 65-team contract.

Each share likely will increase, but the % of money going to the larger conferences would almost assuredly increase. Certain mid-level conferences like the Colonial, A-10, MVC, Horizon, WAC, MWC, Sunbelt, CUSA will likely vote for it too, as it would add to their overall share. The bottom feeder conferences are the ones that will see a lower %.

[82SiouxGuy]

And I'm saying that the NCAA will need to negotiate with networks for a bigger TV contract such that the 1/2 from the new 96-team contract will guarantee that each "share" will not decrease in value from a "share" based on the previous 65-team contract.

The networks aren't going to pay a certain amount just to make sure that each share goes up, no matter what the NCAA wants. They will decide what they can afford to pay. If any network decides that they can afford enough to pay so that the shares do increase, good for the schools. If the networks don't value those additional games enough then the new contract wouldn't increase enough to allow that.

[MplsBison]

Each share likely will increase, but the % of money going to the larger conferences would almost assuredly increase. Certain mid-level conferences like the Colonial, A-10, MVC, Horizon, WAC, MWC, Sunbelt, CUSA will likely vote for it too, as it would add to their overall share. The bottom feeder conferences are the ones that will see a lower %.

So you'd turn down a raise just because the % your paycheck represents of the total payroll would decrease?

[MplsBison]

The networks aren't going to pay a certain amount just to make sure that each share goes up, no matter what the NCAA wants. They will decide what they can afford to pay. If any network decides that they can afford enough to pay so that the shares do increase, good for the schools. If the networks don't value those additional games enough then the new contract wouldn't increase enough to allow that.

I never disagreed with this and, once again, you are correct.

You're arguing about oranges and I'm talking about apples.

[82SiouxGuy]

I never disagreed with this and, once again, you are correct.

You're arguing about oranges and I'm talking about apples.

No, I'm pointing out that you often have a very simplistic view of issues and should be more realistic. There is a law of diminishing returns. You can't just keep adding teams and expect that the networks will keep paying more and more. They have a business to run also. It is very possible that if you add 31 teams, team number 96 in that scenario will make less than team number 65 does now. It is possible that team number 64 in a 96 team tournament will earn less than team number 64 does now.

[star2city]

No, I'm pointing out that you often have a very simplistic view of issues and should be more realistic. There is a law of diminishing returns. You can't just keep adding teams and expect that the networks will keep paying more and more. They have a business to run also. It is very possible that if you add 31 teams, team number 96 in that scenario will make less than team number 65 does now. It is possible that team number 64 in a 96 team tournament will earn less than team number 64 does now.

It partly depends on how they structure the payouts. With a 65 team field: there are 128 "shares" that are distributed by wins (63 - the championship game win doesn't count) and by participants (65).

With 96 teams, and all teams were considered equal for appearances (seeds #33-96 gets same $'s as seed #1-32) , there would be 190 "shares": 96 based on appearance and 94 based on wins (without the championship game). If the total contractual payout increases by more than 50% (and the new contract might end up being 100% increase and possibly even more with another weekend), the payout/share effectively increases.

The power conferences and the upper mid-majors would likely vote for it (more appearances and more wins). Some smaller conference could also, as the #14, #15, #16 seed would now become #22, 23, and 24, but their chances in the first round game would grow from none to slim (they'd face #9, #10, #11 seeds in the first round) and they'd wouldn't have to face certain losses against the #1, #2, and #3 seeds in the next round (instead they'd face the #6, #7, #8 seeds if they won). It's complicated, but there are actually some incentives for all conferences, even the weakest ones, to expand the field. In addition, the NCAA would get to spread the love around to four more host cites (assuming 16 teams play one game the first weekend in each of the first round host cities).

If the men's went to 96, the women's would too.

[82SiouxGuy]

It partly depends on how they structure the payouts. With a 65 team field: there are 128 "shares" that are distributed by wins (63 - the championship game win doesn't count) and by participants (65).

With 96 teams, and all teams were considered equal for appearances (seeds #33-96 gets same $'s as seed #1-32) , there would be 190 "shares": 96 based on appearance and 94 based on wins (without the championship game). If the total contractual payout increases by more than 50% (and the new contract might end up being 100% increase and possibly even more with another weekend), the payout/share effectively increases.

The power conferences and the upper mid-majors would likely vote for it (more appearances and more wins). Some smaller conference could also, as the #14, #15, #16 seed would now become #22, 23, and 24, but their chances in the first round game would grow from none to slim (they'd face #9, #10, #11 seeds in the first round) and they'd wouldn't have to face certain losses against the #1, #2, and #3 seeds in the next round (instead they'd face the #6, #7, #8 seeds if they won). It's complicated, but there are actually some incentives for all conferences, even the weakest ones, to expand the field. In addition, the NCAA would get to spread the love around to four more host cites (assuming 16 teams play one game the first weekend in each of the first round host cities).

If the men's went to 96, the women's would too.

The 2 variables are if they would keep the payout structure the same, and how much the TV contract increases. The increase would have to be at least 50% if the structure stayed the same, and I don't think that is guaranteed. Advertising dollars are still tight, and things like automobiles are big advertisers on the NCAA tournament, as they are for most sports. At some point the large increases in TV contracts will have to slow down or stop. It will depend on the economy when they negotiate the contract, and how many networks are interested in the tournament. My entire point is that you can't assume that increasing the size of the tournament will automatically increase the payouts for a lower tier conference.

[MplsBison]

The 2 variables are if they would keep the payout structure the same, and how much the TV contract increases. The increase would have to be at least 50% if the structure stayed the same, and I don't think that is guaranteed. Advertising dollars are still tight, and things like automobiles are big advertisers on the NCAA tournament, as they are for most sports. At some point the large increases in TV contracts will have to slow down or stop. It will depend on the economy when they negotiate the contract, and how many networks are interested in the tournament. My entire point is that you can't assume that increasing the size of the tournament will automatically increase the payouts for a lower tier conference.

No, it's not automatic. It never was and no one is arguing it will be.

We're just saying that, assuming the pay structure stays the same, then the Summit stands to gain financial (along with every other conference) via increased tournament revenue if the contract increases in value the way most people expect it will.

82, you're not wrong...just most likely wrong.

[mizzou/sioux]

If indeed the NCAA does expand the men's basketball tournament field from 65 to, let's say, 96-97 or whatever, might it just be possible that what was result in the end is another BCS type field? One in which the power schools from the power conference have effectively placed most schools, including UND and NDSU into another D-2 category, FCS for a football comparison. Thus, the big schools and the big conferences will have in effect been able to distance themselves from the rest of the pack, collect most of the money and leave the FCS basketball schools in the rear-view mirrors. In the even that happens, we're pretty much back to the former D-1/D-2 situation we were formerly in. Not saying it's definitely going to happen, but as we all know from past experience, MONEY TALKS!!! BCS effectively hijacked college football. Isn't it possible the basketball superpowers and superconferences are looking to football as a precedent and BCS basketball is next?

[MplsBison]

If indeed the NCAA does expand the men's basketball tournament field from 65 to, let's say, 96-97 or whatever, might it just be possible that what was result in the end is another BCS type field? One in which the power schools from the power conference have effectively placed most schools, including UND and NDSU into another D-2 category, FCS for a football comparison. Thus, the big schools and the big conferences will have in effect been able to distance themselves from the rest of the pack, collect most of the money and leave the FCS basketball schools in the rear-view mirrors. In the even that happens, we're pretty much back to the former D-1/D-2 situation we were formerly in. Not saying it's definitely going to happen, but as we all know from past experience, MONEY TALKS!!! BCS effectively hijacked college football. Isn't it possible the basketball superpowers and superconferences are looking to football as a precedent and BCS basketball is next?

I would think the BCS schools would just walk away from the NCAA if they felt that too much of "their" revenue was going to the smaller schools. Much cleaner break than trying to stay in the NCAA and set up a bunch of rules/divisions for keeping the money up top.

[IronFist]

The Big East would approve. The entire 16-team conference would have a shot at making it to the big dance then. But then the Big East tournament at MSG would completely lose its meaning. Six OTs between Syracuse and UConn? Who cares?..........it's not like such a game would have any real implications under a 96-team tournament scenario.

[mizzou/sioux]

I would think the BCS schools would just walk away from the NCAA if they felt that too much of "their" revenue was going to the smaller schools. Much cleaner break than trying to stay in the NCAA and set up a bunch of rules/divisions for keeping the money up top.

Good point, MplsBison. And that just might happen--and--sooner than we think. Then much of this going up to D1 from D2 might all have been all for nought in the final analysis.

[MplsBison]

Good point, MplsBison. And that just might happen--and--sooner than we think. Then much of this going up to D1 from D2 might all have been all for nought in the final analysis.

I actually wish the large budget schools would go away. Then DI in the NCAA could become homogenized and NDSU (and UND) really would have a chance to be one of the best schools in DI.

The BCS and larger FBS schools don't need the NCAA anymore. They probably haven't for a while.

Then for teams like UND hockey, I would think they would not be in the NCAA and would join the big school's hockey conference as an affiliate.

[mizzou/sioux]

I actually wish the large budget schools would go away. Then DI in the NCAA could become homogenized and NDSU (and UND) really would have a chance to be one of the best schools in DI.

The BCS and larger FBS schools don't need the NCAA anymore. They probably haven't for a while.

Then for teams like UND hockey, I would think they would not be in the NCAA and would join the big school's hockey conference as an affiliate.

Point well taken, MplsBison. However, in that event it still puts schools such as UND and NDSU pretty much right back into the situation they were before, at a level below the BCS-type football schools, making us comparatively once again D2 level schools with the power BCS schools once again a division above us. That then puts many of today's D2 schools at a D3 level, D3 at D4, and so on and so on. In the event that happens, what real longstanding good has been done by both UND and NDSU's move up to Division I. We can call ourselves Division I, the BCS schools can go into their own category--call it what you like--but we really would be Division I in name only.

[MplsBison]

Point well taken, MplsBison. However, in that event it still puts schools such as UND and NDSU pretty much right back into the situation they were before, at a level below the BCS-type football schools, making us comparatively once again D2 level schools with the power BCS schools once again a division above us. That then puts many of today's D2 schools at a D3 level, D3 at D4, and so on and so on. In the event that happens, what real longstanding good has been done by both UND and NDSU's move up to Division I. We can call ourselves Division I, the BCS schools can go into their own category--call it what you like--but we really would be Division I in name only.

I understand what you mean fully.

But what would really be different? Yes NDSU and UND can claim to be in the same division as schools like Penn State and Texas in sports like baseball, softball, volleyball, basketball, etc. Does that really do us any good? We'll never be on their level in football and for the rest of the sports it isn't really a level playing field either. Just because we're both technically "DI" doesn't make it even. NDSU and UND don't have a chance to be national champions in any sport with the exception of ice hockey.

That's why I'd rather eject the "big-time" big budget schools and turn DI into a true DI for all sports, like DII and DIII are. You'd have the top FCS schools plus the lower FBS schools in football with the tournament at the end of the season. So we'd be competing with the Utah State's, MAC conference schools, Sun Belt, etc. The BCS schools wouldn't bring those guys along.

Then we really would be at the top of the highest division in the NCAA. Yes there would be a different association of the big budget schools, but so what?

[82SiouxGuy]

I understand what you mean fully.

But what would really be different? Yes NDSU and UND can claim to be in the same division as schools like Penn State and Texas in sports like baseball, softball, volleyball, basketball, etc. Does that really do us any good? We'll never be on their level in football and for the rest of the sports it isn't really a level playing field either. Just because we're both technically "DI" doesn't make it even. NDSU and UND don't have a chance to be national champions in any sport with the exception of ice hockey.

That's why I'd rather eject the "big-time" big budget schools and turn DI into a true DI for all sports, like DII and DIII are. You'd have the top FCS schools plus the lower FBS schools in football with the tournament at the end of the season. So we'd be competing with the Utah State's, MAC conference schools, Sun Belt, etc. The BCS schools wouldn't bring those guys along.

Then we really would be at the top of the highest division in the NCAA. Yes there would be a different association of the big budget schools, but so what?

The big difference would be money and attention. The big schools would take the money from March Madness with them. I believe that pays a lot of bills for the NCAA and is the only contract that brings money back to the schools and conferences. There would still be a contract for showing the Division I basketball tournament, but it wouldn't be nearly as large. The money going back to the schools and the conferences would probably be closer to what they get in DII which I believe is just expenses. Also, the networks and ESPN wouldn't give nearly as much attention to the DI tournament. So the schools wouldn't get their day in the sun like NDSU did last year.

[FargoBison]

I always laugh when people say the big schools will up and leave. They make a mint from both football and basketball, if you take the small schools out of the NCAA basketball tournament it becomes worthless, no more brackets, no more Cinderellas, no more ratings. Goodbye fat TV contract.

Don't tell me that the Cinderellas don't matter, there would be no drama in watching Duke play some .500 Big 10 team in round 1 of the big school only tournament.

Who fills the non-conference schedules of all the big schools? It is small schools. Providing a multitude of home games that the big schools make barrels of money on. You think the small schools are going to be jumping to give them all those homes games once the big schools pretty much destroy what to the small schools is college athletics. I doubt it.

Nothing is going to change.

[MplsBison]

I always laugh when people say the big schools will up and leave. They make a mint from both football and basketball, if you take the small schools out of the NCAA basketball tournament it becomes worthless, no more brackets, no more Cinderellas, no more ratings. Goodbye fat TV contract.

Don't tell me that the Cinderellas don't matter, there would be no drama in watching Duke play some .500 Big 10 team in round 1 of the big school only tournament.

Who fills the non-conference schedules of all the big schools? It is small schools. Providing a multitude of home games that the big schools make barrels of money on. You think the small schools are going to be jumping to give them all those homes games once the big schools pretty much destroy what to the small schools is college athletics. I doubt it.

Nothing is going to change.

Couldn't disagree more with everything you said.

Big schools stand to gain millions of additional dollars of revenue if they left the NCAA.

[FargoBison]

Couldn't disagree more with everything you said.

Big schools stand to gain millions of additional dollars of revenue if they left the NCAA.

They could easily lose money, by leaving they assume a tremendous amount of risk.

But as I thought you had no response to what I said and what I was talking about was only the tip of the ice berg if a split happened.

If the decision to leave was easy it would have been made. Of course it isn't because the risks that are involved are very great. Plus, when you are already taking a big chunk of the money that the NCAA generates, what is the point in upsetting the status quo that is built around serving you?

[MplsBison]

They could easily lose money, by leaving they assume a tremendous amount of risk.

But as I thought you had no response to what I said and what I was talking about was only the tip of the ice berg if a split happened.

If the decision to leave was easy it would have been made. Of course it isn't because the risks that are involved are very great. Plus, when you are already taking a big chunk of the money that the NCAA generates, what is the point in upsetting the status quo that is built around serving you?

Because they're guaranteed even more money.

The NCAA doesn't generated diddly poo. No one pays to watch the NCAA do anything.

It's the teams themselves that generate the money and the teams are what people want to see.