Will A 96-Team NCAA Tournament Make Less Sense (And Fewer Cents) Long Term?
↵
↵Eamonn Brennan, in writing about possible flaws in the NCAA's inevitable move to 96 teams, notes a great column on the subject from The Trentonian's Ben Doody. How does Doody see it? As a money grab, of course, but he agrees with SN's Mike DeCourcy that it could also be one that could diminish the long-term value of the product.↵
↵↵⇥But the tournament will lose a lot of its appeal if it gives 32 teams a bye while the other 64 have to play on the first day. One of the charming things about the tournament as its presently constituted is that Kansas needs to play the same number of games to win the tournament as Robert Morris — that on the first day, upsets like Ohio over Georgetown are possible. This is corny but entirely true: Those upsets give the tournament charm, and that charm is the reason casual sports fans — or better yet, people not even interested in sports — become college basketball fans in March.⇥⇥↵⇥↵⇥Expanding the tournament has the potential to turn away those fans in droves, yielding the NCAA’s TV partner — whether its CBS, ESPN or someone else — lower ratings. That could easily mean that by the time it’s time to negotiate the next tournament TV deal, the value of the deal will be less than it would have with a 65-team field.⇥⇥↵⇥
↵↵It’s not just that inequality that NCAA bigwigs should worry about, though. Doody notes that lucrative mid-major conference tournaments would suffer if both regular-season and tournament champions earned bids in largely ignored leads -- a prospect under some expansion plans -- and it’s doubtful that the more important regular season games would add up to the value of a TV contract for a less compelling tournament.↵
↵↵Providing a broadcaster with more games would probably make more money in the near-term for the NCAA. That’s generally a good thing: milking revenue out of the biggest cash cow the NCAA owns is probably going to help fencers, wrestlers, and gymnasts as much or more than it helps the NCAA officials who broker the deal.↵
↵↵But the NCAA must at least be aware that this may be a short-term infusion of cash that comes at the risk of ruining the cow. If ratings plummet, that cow won’t be a sure source of income in the future, and it may be a cowed NCAA that is talking to the TV networks when this all-but-done deal expires. ↵
↵
This post originally appeared on the Sporting Blog. For more, see The Sporting Blog Archives.
See More:
