Most college basketball fans breathed a sigh of relief around lunchtime Thursday when the NCAA announced that it would be expanding the NCAA tournament to 68, and not 96 teams.
Perhaps the NCAA realized the likely backlash against a 96-team tournament would lead to declining viewership, and a possibly unsustainable TV contract. Or maybe the NCAA concluded what we all knew the Friday before the Final Four, which was that the 96-team model was so haphazardly explained that even they didn't truly know how it would work. Or perhaps it was all a ruse to get extra TV money.
Whatever the reasons, 68 is a fantastic number and for now, 96 is a non-issue.
Next year's 68-team tournament will have some merits for schools and fans that 65 did not provide.
The first is one that few people are excited about. The three extra play-in games are going to be beneficial. You will hardly hear anyone trying to claim this point. As a result of the minor expansion to 68, three more teams will win tournament games from conferences that would have likely not won a first-round game in the previous setup. The effects of this are not limited to the confidence of the players and coaches.
Each time a team wins a game in the NCAA tournament, its conference gets over a million dollars to distribute amongst its members. During this year's tournament, Arkansas-Pine Bluff won SWAC's first tournament game since 1993 when it beat Winthrop in the play-in game.
SWAC schools averaged only $700,000 in 2009 for basketball expenses, less than half of the national mean. For a 10-team conference, approximately $100,000 of extra funds per school can have a great impact. This effect can be translated to three other conferences every year with the extra play-in games.
In the aftermath of the news of the 68-team field, some writers proclaimed that the extra play-in games should be used to determine which of the last few teams in the field get to advance to the round of 64. While that is a noble thought, it would have adverse effects on the schools and conferences that are supposed to "benefit" from going straight into the round of 64.
Also, the entire tournament will be available to pretty much anyone who has cable under the new TV deal. That's right, no more of that maddening waiting for CBS to turn it to the close game, just because a team in your market is up 20 or down 20 and your CBS affiliate has picked up the "constant feed" of the game.
Anyone who has had broadband Internet has been able to watch the entire tournament for about the last five years or so, but the consistency of March Madness On Demand to deliver a fast, quality stream will pale in comparison to having every game on TV within a few remote control clicks of each other.
The new tournament will not dilute the field the way a 96-team one would have done. I believe that the three teams that would have gotten into a hypothetical field of 68 who were not in the field of 65 would be Virginia Tech, Illinois, and Mississippi State.
Personally, I would have liked to seen all three of those teams given a chance to play in the tournament. What's more is that the bubble teams from a field of 65 to a field of 68 change minimally, if at all. Teams such as Rhode Island, Ole Miss, UAB, and Arizona State, who might not have made the 68-team tournament, were all contenders for at-larges in the final week of the season.
This isn't to say we're out of the woods concerning a 96-team field by any means. When the NCAA higher-ups were asked about it, they were non-committal about further expansion or the lack thereof. Yet one of the reasons the NCAA was considering the 96-team tournament was to integrate the NIT into the NCAAs since the NCAA owns the NIT. During the announcement to go to 68 teams, the NCAA said it was looking for a new TV contract for the NIT. If that is a longer contract, it may be another good sign that the tournament will not be expanding to a watered down number.
Whatever the TV contracts are, at least for now, college basketball fans should be pleased and even optimistic that a 68-team tournament can produce fantastic tournaments like the 2010 version.
April 28, 2010
Kyle Jahner:
Agreed on TV situation. But not on 68 being universally better than 65.
So now the teams regularly pulling the 12-5, 13-4 upsets are all bumped basically a seed lower by three teams from major conferences that had mediocre years. (12 was the cuttoff point generally for at-large seeds, now it will be around 13).
Theoretically this could be damaging to the small school over big school upsets that make the tournament. What if Murray State got No. 3 Pitt or Baylor instead of Vandy? Ohio gets No. 2 Ohio State or WVU? It doesn’t eliminate upsets but it decreases the likelihood of the best upset matchup scenarios in the tournament.
I’m not calling it cataclysmic, but I will call it damaging, and you have to keep this bump-down effect in mind when evaluating the move to 68. I care much more about these games than I care about some 16-seed getting to say I won a “tournament game” over some other 16-seed, when we all know that’s not a tournament game, but a squeezing out of the field of 64 of one of two lesser conference champions.
May 10, 2010
Christopher:
I know College Basketball is a business and money is always the hottest topic for any school and any company. The decision to expand the field revolves around money and how to get a bigger piece of the pie. I love this tournament and the excitement it brings into the sports world. I can deal with 68 but 96 is a joke that will only lead men in suits laughing all the way to the bank. Or so they think!