Who Gains From NCAA Expansion?

by CSP Guest Writer Richard Cato

As early as next year we may see an increase to 96 teams in the annual March tournament.  Rather than an expansion of conference representation, it is estimated that the NCAA-owned NIT tournament will be shut down and the selection process currently in use expanded.

The NIT has traditionally been a regional tournament and can trace its routes back to 1938.  In modern times it is viewed as a consolation prize to schools that finish in the middle of larger conferences.  This year notable teams such as UNC and UConn, both having seasons unworthy of inclusion of March Madness, found their way to New York and participated in the NIT.

Roy WIlliams wasn't this excited for the NIT

Last Thursday, UNC played Dayton in the NIT finals in an unfilled Madison Square Garden.  As a further insult, UNC started the game as if it did not appear to care that there was a championship trophy being presented at the conclusion of the game.  Coming out of halftime Roy Williams had the Tar Heels competitive once again, but it was too little too late and they fell to a talented and motivated Dayton.  After the game Coach Williams seemed neutral regarding possible expansion, but it was evident that neither he, nor his players, would have taken consolation from an NIT victory.

It is unlikely that UNC will have another disappointing year next season, but even if it were to happen, they would likely be one of the primary beneficiaries from the proposed expansion.  Should underperforming teams be rewarded with additional revenue proceeds to their schools?

Back in the 1970’s, the rules of the NCAA tournament were changed to allow for more than one team per conference to become eligible for the tournament.  These changes allowed for multiple highly-ranked teams to provide better competition within the frame of the tournament and create a “true champion”, an idea that has driven the wild success of March Madness and continues to escape the architects of the BCS structure.

Currently, approximately 70 of the 119 Division I football programs are bowl-eligible and receive a bid.  Compare that to the roughly 20% of NCAA Division I men’s basketball programs that receive entry to the field of 65 and this seems entirely unfair.  While college football does allow for a greater percentage of representation in its postseason, the BCS has come to represent favoritism towards big-name schools that can generate higher ratings and revenue over non-BCS teams who appear to be more worthy.

This year’s NCAA championship includes 5^th-seeded Butler of the Horizon League attempting to capture its first-ever national championship.  The lowest seed to reach the national championship was #8 seed Villanova in 1985.  Next season we could see the top 32 teams (top 8 seeds in each region) given a first-round bye.  In this scenario, teams such as Cornell (#12), St. Mary’s (#10) and Northern Iowa (#9) would face a fresh-legged opponent in its second game.  In the end, the likelihood of seeing more recognizable big-name schools in the later rounds of the tournament would be improved, along with the ratings and revenue.  The NCAA can opt-out of the existing 6-year $11 billion contract it has with CBS and receive an even higher amount, even despite the recent economic turmoil.  The NCAA distributes these proceeds to participating schools.

In theory it will allow for additional small conferences to share in a portion of the revenue and compete in a national spotlight.  Unfortunately the harsh reality is that larger, less deserving teams such as UNC and UConn from this years NIT tournament will take these places.

The posturing that academics are being taken into account is also insulting.  If the NCAA were serious in its commitment to use profits for the means of educational improvements, it would accompany these changes with a requirement of a 65% graduation rate for participating schools.  Unfortunately this would eliminate several prominent programs (and ratings giants) such as Kentucky.

While it would be nice to think that the expansion of the NCAA tournament, valued by many for its design and fairness, would extol those same virtues and use expansion to contribute to the success of more small and underfunded colleges and universities, it is evident that expansion will benefit the networks and those universities that have already highly invested in their own athletic programs.  For student-athletes there will be additional revenue that is earned by their hand without compensation and for small schools with dreams to win against the odds, there is an even steeper hill to climb.