A 96-team NCAA Tournament is closer to becoming reality — despite the fact that fans and many of the game’s most prominent voices absolutely abhor the idea.
The NCAA is in the process of soliciting bids from potential TV partners interested in broadcasting a 68 or 96-team tournament. The 68-team model would add three additional “play-in” games to the field of 65. A 96-team field would mean the top 32 seeds in the tournament would get a first-round bye.
The NCAA’s contract with CBS runs through the 2013 tournament, but gives the NCAA the option to opt out after this year’s Final Four. CBS would likely team with Turner Broadcasting in bidding on the broadcast rights, but Fox and ESPN are also reportedly considering offers.
NBC/Comcast could be a sleeper; there’s been conjecture that the cable TV giant has aspirations of building up its Versus network into a legitimate competitor to ESPN — getting involved in the NCAA tournament could go a long way towards establishing some credibility there.
Why Expand?
Two reasons, really — neither of which are particularly compelling to me.
- Coaches know that their job security depends on making the NCAA Tournament. More tournament berths means more job security for more coaches.
- The tournament — by far — the biggest driver of revenue for the NCAA. More games means more revenue.
Personally, I don’t buy the job security argument. Making it easier to reach the tournament will make earning a berth a far less impressive accomplishment. Do you think reaching the postseason as the 90th seed out of 96 will be that much more impressive than reaching the NIT? Me neither. Coaches will still get fired — it’s the nature of the job.
The capitalist in me wants to be swayed by the revenue argument, but it’s not that simple. Profits are good, yes. And expanding one’s product line is often a good way to increase one’s profits. But there’s a real risk of over-expansion. When the marketplace is flooded, the product can lose its appeal. Case in point — did the National Hockey League really need to expand into markets like Miami, Tampa, Atlanta and Phoenix? Would the NHL be healthier today if they’d stuck with core markets in the northern U.S. and Canada? I’d much rather the NCAA find ways to make more money on the regular season, rather than trying to extract even more milk from its cash cow.
There’s also the matter of timing. To be frank, it stinks. The economy is in the dumper. But despite the market conditions, the NCAA is willing to abandon a deal worth over $2.1 billion over the next three years and start from scratch. I wasn’t a business major, so help me out — does that seem like a good idea to anyone else?
More:
Expanded NCAA Tournament a “Done Deal?” originally appeared on About.com Basketball on Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010 at 12:57:13.
Permalink | Comment | Email this
