After months of deliberation, the NCAA’s varying committees have agreed to expand the men’s and women’s basketball tournaments to 76 teams.
The change comes amid plenty of outside backlash, but announcements and comments from varying NCAA stakeholders were designed to quell some of the uneasiness about the dramatic changes.
“There are 32 conferences in the NCAA and not one of them is opposed to expansion at any level -- that’s a pretty powerful statement,” NCAA VP/Basketball Dan Gavitt said. “While I know that there’s not excitement in some corners of the media and fan base, our schools and conferences are saying, ‘We need this.’ Things are changing. And this is being responsive to their needs and keeping what’s special about March Madness special for many years to come.”
Responsiveness aside, there’s no doubt some who came out on top and others who didn’t with this week’s determinations.
So who won and who lost in all of this? I tried to pick a couple answers here.
Winners
The Power Four Conferences
It’s no secret the Power Four have been looking to increasingly lord over college sports.
The NCAA changed its entire governance structure, yes, in part, to expedite the decision making process. It also did so to appease the powers that be -- the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC -- by granting them weighted voting power on those new-look committees.
As it relates to the tournament, recent history shows the expansion will almost certainly benefit these leagues and their increasingly bloated size. The Power Four accounted for 13 of 20 teams in the “first four out” of the bracket over the past five years. All of those teams now would make it into the field.
There is at least some conversation to be had about the benefits smaller conferences will get from seeing six automatic qualifiers playing at least two tournament games each year, guaranteeing those leagues one additional unit (only two automatic qualifiers had that chance in the 68-team format). That’s not nothing.
It’s also worth noting initial fears about the Power Four pushing for new looks to automatic qualifiers and other variations of expansion that would’ve inherently hurt smaller conferences are not part of this. But let’s not kid ourselves, this is being done, at least on some level, to appease the richest and most powerful leagues in the country.
The NCAA’s sponsorship revenue
As Sports Business Journal has reported for months, a major piece to the expansion discussion was the opening of new sponsorship categories in exchange for a bigger bracket.
Now that’s coming to fruition.
As part of shifting the field to 76 teams, beer, wine, spirits, and hard seltzers will be made available within the NCAA’s Corporate Champions and Partners Program. That’s a major shift for an organization that has been admittedly conservative in how it sells sponsorships and what categories it offers up.
The sentiment among industry insiders in recent months has been that CBS/TNT would not up their rights fees if the tournament expanded, so the money had to come from elsewhere. Adding eight teams to the field, after all, isn’t a cheap proposition. New sponsorship categories allow, in part, for everyone to be made whole.
Those involved are betting there are big dollars to be made here annually. They’re probably right.
Losers
Potential bidders on the next NCAA media rights deal
You could argue this going either way, but, long term, I’m guessing this “trial run” is going to cost CBS/TNT or whoever decides to bid on the tournament when the current deal is up in 2032 billions.
Sources I spoke with in the lead up to expansion characterized adding a handful of games to the early rounds now as a sampling of sorts for the TV networks. If they rate well -- and the NCAA is betting they will -- that’s a bargaining chip come extension/new deal time.
The college sports media market is in a fascinating place and seemingly ready to spark another round realignment with a slew of deals expiring in a three-year window between 2029 and 2032.
The NFL is going to go after every dollar it can with its current discussions. Next up? College football and college basketball, depending how they might be packaged.
The NCAA’s hope that people will watch feels like a logical thought. Just don’t tell the execs at the major networks, because this expansion sure feels like it’s going to cost them more money in the long run.
The fans
Plenty of corners of the internet and within the college basketball ecosystem have been critical of the NCAA’s efforts to expand the tournament.
The prevailing sentiment? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
They may have a point.
Being a college sports fan these days is genuinely hard. Player movement makes keeping up with rosters more complicated. The postseason -- the College Football Playoff and NCAA tournament -- are in seemingly weekly discussions about completely overhauling their structure to the point some can’t keep up. That’s all also not to mention the price of attending games has never been higher.
Chalk up NCAA tournament expansion as another bullet point on the growing list of things fans aren’t asking for or would prefer not happen that decision makers have moved ahead with.
