Question about tournament expansion

[XUOWNSUC]

While looking at articles about tournament expansion, I have read that the NCAA gets roughly 85% of its revenues from the NCAA men's basketball tournament. How is this possible? Why don't they get more from college football?

Anybody know?

[joebba]

While looking at articles about tournament expansion, I have read that the NCAA gets roughly 85% of its revenues from the NCAA men's basketball tournament. How is this possible? Why don't they get more from college football?

Anybody know?

I saw that and was wondering myself. I am sure the big schools like OSU, FLA, USC, etc, make tons more money through their football programs vs their basketball programs.

[dc_x]

The NCAA does not run the BCS and does not get any revenue from college football. The BCS is run by the 6 BCS conferences and Notre Dame.

The NCAA also does not generate any revenue from the college basketball regular season - those revenues are kept by the schools and conferences.

The NCAA's 2 major sources of revenue are the men's basketball tournament and membership fees from member institutions, of which the tournament generates 80%-90% of the total.

It's a bit of a shell game because the NCAA is just an organization created by member institutions to administer certain college sports. Whatever "profit" is generated is just paid out to the members.

As the costs of running all the money-losing NCAA championships continues to increase, the NCAA needs to generate more revenue by either (a) increasing the membership fees charged to its members or (b) increasing the revenue generated by its only profitable championship.

In this environment asking the member institutions to contribute more to the NCAA is a tough sell...and the expansion to 96 teams is the solution.

[X-Fan]

As the costs of running all the money-losing NCAA championships continues to increase, the NCAA needs to generate more revenue by either (a) increasing the membership fees charged to its members or (b) increasing the revenue generated by its only profitable championship.

In this environment asking the member institutions to contribute more to the NCAA is a tough sell...and the expansion to 96 teams is the solution.

You summed up the situation very well dc_x. While I am not a fan of the expansion I think it could work for the most part, and the monetary benefit does make sense. With that said, I recently saw a "model" for how it would work and I think it should be tweaked.

The model I saw had a new 1st round on Tues/Wed where the bottom 32 seeds play. Then the "2nd round" would be Fri/Sat games to get to the top 32 teams.

Here's where it got a little crazy IMO...

The 3rd Round would be Tues/Wed the next week to get to the Sweet 16, followed by the normal Thurs/Fri, Sat/Sun rounds to make the Final 4. (Why punish everyone with the expansion?)

I don't like the three games in 6 days to decide the Final 4. I think they should either make the 1st week have 3 games in 6 days, or push the tourney out a week and make the new 1st round play out over 4 days. Either way, I see it as an incentive to not be a 9 to 16 seed. Three games in the first week would also would prevent the big 6 conf. teams from playing a weak non-conf schedule. No one will want to have to play 3 games in 6 days to make the Sweet 16.

Anyway, I think that's the only saving grace of going to 96 teams. I have to admit, I wouldn't mind watching the extra games. Again, I don't want the change, but since it's inevitable I might as well deal with it.

[BandAid]

Instead of completely consuming the entire NIT field into the NCAAs, why not have the NIT's semi-finalist receive the final four bubble bids? Add a week to the tournament and have these NIT teams still play in the Gardens for those four spots. It will be a tournament before the tournament. Then continue on with the NCAAs as usual.

Yes, it will be a much tougher road for teams trying to make it from the now-titled NIT to the Final 4, but it's their own fault they are in that position.

Yes, there are a lot of problems with this idea, but there are a lot of problems with the 96-team field idea as it is. It would still expand the number of teams, games, and revenue (which is all the NCAA truly wants to do).

[XUOWNSUC]

The NCAA does not run the BCS and does not get any revenue from college football. The BCS is run by the 6 BCS conferences and Notre Dame.

The NCAA also does not generate any revenue from the college basketball regular season - those revenues are kept by the schools and conferences.

The NCAA's 2 major sources of revenue are the men's basketball tournament and membership fees from member institutions, of which the tournament generates 80%-90% of the total.

It's a bit of a shell game because the NCAA is just an organization created by member institutions to administer certain college sports. Whatever "profit" is generated is just paid out to the members.

As the costs of running all the money-losing NCAA championships continues to increase, the NCAA needs to generate more revenue by either (a) increasing the membership fees charged to its members or (b) increasing the revenue generated by its only profitable championship.

In this environment asking the member institutions to contribute more to the NCAA is a tough sell...and the expansion to 96 teams is the solution.

Thanks for that perspective. I guess the above explanation is the real reason why there is no football play-off. If there were such a play-off, the NCAA would make more money at the expense of the BCS schools (and ND). Kinda sucks though.

[dc_x]

Here's where it got a little crazy IMO...

The 3rd Round would be Tues/Wed the next week to get to the Sweet 16, followed by the normal Thurs/Fri, Sat/Sun rounds to make the Final 4. (Why punish everyone with the expansion?)

I don't like the three games in 6 days to decide the Final 4. I think they should either make the 1st week have 3 games in 6 days, or push the tourney out a week and make the new 1st round play out over 4 days. Either way, I see it as an incentive to not be a 9 to 16 seed. Three games in the first week would also would prevent the big 6 conf. teams from playing a weak non-conf schedule. No one will want to have to play 3 games in 6 days to make the Sweet 16.


I thought the NCAA's model had an even more compressed time frame. They proposed:

round of 96 - Thurs/Fri (same as current round of 64)
round of 64 - Sat/Sun (same as current round of 32)
round of 32 - Tues/Wed
sweet 16 - Thurs/Fri (same as current sweet 16)
elite 8 - Sat/Sun (same as current elite 8)
final 4/champ - Sat/Mon (same as current)

That's a span of 11 days with only 1 day off (the Monday of the 2nd week). Even if you get a bye, you would have to win 4 games in 9 days to make the Final 4.

There was this great exchange where the NCAA spokesman talked in circles to avoid directly stating that players will have to miss 2 solid weeks of class under this format.

http://deadspin.com/5508007/last-nights-winner-john-feinstein

[GoMuskies]

The NCAA does not run the BCS and does not get any revenue from college football. The BCS is run by the 6 BCS conferences and Notre Dame.


The one good result of this is that you can drink beer at BCS bowl games.

I think the NCAA could make up its revenue gap just by selling beer at NCAA Tournament games.

[coasterville95]

I saw a slightly different scenario:

The one I saw had:

Selection Sunday
(The Play in Game at UD Arena gets eliminated)
Thurs/Fri Week 1 - Round of 96 - Seeds 9-24 play
Sat/Sun Week 1 - Round of 64 - Seeds 1-8 play winners from first round
Tue/Wed Week 2 - Round of 32
(Tournament continues as usual)
Thu/Fri Week 2 - Sweet 16
Sat/Sun Week 2 - Elite Eight
Sat Week 3 - Final Four
Mon Week 4 - Finals

As the media explained so well before they were appaerently gag ordered - this means Week 2 could be a game every other day (Tue/Thu/Sat) or (Wed/Fri/Sun) and if they scheduling gods don't like you AND you were a 9-24 seeded school, you could have:
Game 1 on Friday week 1, Game 2 on Sunday week 1, Game 3 on Tuesday week 2, game 4 on Thursday week 2, game 5 on Saturday week 2. That's 5 days of game every other day, doesn't leave much time for film study, scouting, film sessions, practice, particularly if there are venue changes along the way. It also means basically 3 weeks out of school

why mess with a good thing:
First round sites:
Round 1 - (r of 96) - Thu Fri week 1
Round 2 - (r of 64) - Sat Sun week 1
- Venue change -
Mid round sites
Round 3 (r of 32) - Thu Fri week 2
Round 4 (r of 16) - Sat Sun Week 2
Regionals
Round 5 (r of 8) - Sat Sun week 3
Final Four Site
Round 6 (r of 4) - Sat week 4
Round 7 (finals) - Mon round 5

Since I assume this would mean the end of the NIT, CBI and CIT, that would leave Mon, tue, wed for the womens tourney.

[MADXSTER]

:D Okay, I throw something out there....

Why not get rid of the conference tourneyments and give teams that come in 1st or 2nd in their league automatic bids. This would shore up an extra weekend.

Obviously the BCS conferences, A10 etc. would not like this because...
The leagues that wouldn't benefit would be the multi bid leagues. However it would give a fairer representation of the NCAA.

[X-band '01]

Here is one major side to the expansion that NOBODY is paying attention to - seeding. With the top 8 teams getting byes, you're going to have bottom-feeder seeds (21-24) playing teams in the 9-12 seed range instead of teams in the 1-4 upper tier. Let's say a 24th-seeded team like Coppin State pulls an upset in the opening round against a 9 seed (we'll throw in Louisville as an example). Instead of facing a top seed like they've done in the past, they would be facing an 8 seed in the Round of 64 (we'll throw in California as an example). They would face a top-seeded Duke team in the Round of 32.

Now, the question of timing becomes extremely important - do you play 2 rounds in the opening weekend and then play the rounds of 32, 16, and 8 in the 2nd week? Or do you play 3 rounds in the opening week and then go to your usual Sweet 16 setup?

Here's another example. The 1 seed would now be playing a 16/17 seed in the round of 64 that would be a more competitive team than the typical bottom-feeders. If you had the 96-team field this year, teams like UC (yes, the same UC that YTG is running into the ground) and freaking North Carolina would be in the 16/17 hole. If I'm Kentucky or Kansas, I want no part of those teams in the 1st round when it would be a lot easier to beat up on the Hartfords and Binghamtons in the tournament opener.

If you think I'm blowing smoke, ask DePaul fans about the opening-round byes they've gotten in the past. They were seeded #1 three times from 1980-1982 (including the top overall seed in 1981) and have a grand total of ZERO NCAA Tournament wins in that timespan. Now it's much more concievable that a 1 seed could lose to a 16/17 seed with a bigger field.

Do you think that's going to add job security that the coaches keep shoving down our throats?

[coasterville95]

Interesting that the NCAA makes no money off all those Bowl games. That explains why men's basketball IS the NCAA in terms of revenue,

So they say they have 88 championships, which would seem to mean 88 tournaments to run, of which they only make revenue off of 1. I hope the BCS foots the bill for the Bowl expenses, I mean if they take the payday, they should. So 1 tournament pays for 87 tournaments, and still leaves, what is the number 96% to be returned to the schools via the unit distribution program. So if only 4% of the tournament take pays all the NCAA expenses and all the other tournaments, why the need for a money grab, just lower the divdends to the schools, oh that's right, I forget who really owns the NCAA.

Anybody else think its not mere coincidence the payback percentage just HAPPENS to be 96? Could be, but they coldl have also done some creative accounting with payback amounts, and tournament expenses to arrive at that number. Sort of like how Pete Rose night just happned to have had an attendance of 41,092 (say it out loud "Forty One, Ninety Two"), since 4,192 would not have been believed as a Cinergy Field attendance, especailly after seeing the crowd. All they had to do was only put 41,092 tickets on sale...

[dc_x]

Here is one major side to the expansion that NOBODY is paying attention to - seeding. With the top 8 teams getting byes, you're going to have bottom-feeder seeds (21-24) playing teams in the 9-12 seed range instead of teams in the 1-4 upper tier. Let's say a 24th-seeded team like Coppin State pulls an upset in the opening round against a 9 seed (we'll throw in Louisville as an example). Instead of facing a top seed like they've done in the past, they would be facing an 8 seed in the Round of 64 (we'll throw in California as an example). They would face a top-seeded Duke team in the Round of 32.

Now, the question of timing becomes extremely important - do you play 2 rounds in the opening weekend and then play the rounds of 32, 16, and 8 in the 2nd week? Or do you play 3 rounds in the opening week and then go to your usual Sweet 16 setup?

Here's another example. The 1 seed would now be playing a 16/17 seed in the round of 64 that would be a more competitive team than the typical bottom-feeders. If you had the 96-team field this year, teams like UC (yes, the same UC that YTG is running into the ground) and freaking North Carolina would be in the 16/17 hole. If I'm Kentucky or Kansas, I want no part of those teams in the 1st round when it would be a lot easier to beat up on the Hartfords and Binghamtons in the tournament opener.

If you think I'm blowing smoke, ask DePaul fans about the opening-round byes they've gotten in the past. They were seeded #1 three times from 1980-1982 (including the top overall seed in 1981) and have a grand total of ZERO NCAA Tournament wins in that timespan. Now it's much more concievable that a 1 seed could lose to a 16/17 seed with a bigger field.

Do you think that's going to add job security that the coaches keep shoving down our throats?

Good point. People keep saying that expansion benefits the BCS leagues. Really, it benefits the bottom teams in BCS leagues at the expense of the top teams.

I can't wait to see what happens when the first #1 seed gets knocked out in the round of 64 by one of these new #16/17 seeds.

If you look at this year's NIT bracket, the teams seeded 4-5 would have been the 16/17 seeds in the "new" NCAA tourney. That would mean the #1 seeds would open up against the likes of North Carolina, UConn, Texas Tech, etc. instead of Coppin St or Sam Houston St.

[X-band '01]

That's why I highlighted the North Carolina example DC - and once the BCS coaches realize what's about to happen, they'll bitch and moan that they should play the opening round games on campus and "reseed" the teams into the conventional field of 64. That would be the Billy Packer scenario - effectively weed out the lower conferences and truly have the best 64 teams in the foeld.

[xubrew]

expansion is the worst idea ever, and maybe even worse than that.

96 teams is not a championship. it's a jamboree.

piss on them.

[joebba]

it's also not fair to teams like northern iowa, saint mary's, unlv, utep, utah state, etc to tell them that they have to win an additional game to qualify for a round that they would have otherwise already been in. why should teams that took advantage of their first two chances have to play an additional game simply to make room for more teams that aren't as accomplished as they are?? that's crap. to tell northern iowa who beat wichita state during the season, finished higher in the standings, beat wichita state in the conference tournament and won the conference tournament that they now need to play an additional game to make the round of 64 so they can make room for wichita state is complete crap. it essentially allows an entire 30 game season to be trumped by just one game.



I totally agree with this. It is totally unfair to teams team like those you have mentioned that work their butts off to be a worthy tournament team who will now have to endure what amounts to a b league game at the beginning of the tournament. Let's not kid ourselves, if Xavier has a down year we are going to be play in the first round game, and that does not seem fair. The top thirty 32 teams most of which are going to be big 6 schools are going going to benefit from this.

[X-band '01]

It's all going to depend on what the total TV contract is for units to be calculated; to be fair to the smaller schools I think you have to have a minimum of 2 automatic bids to reward both the regular season and the conference tournament champions. Yes, it would require teams like Northern Iowa to play the extra game, but some of the bottom-tier schools like Coppin State and Alabama A&M could get an easier path in the tournament now (increasing the likelihood of wins and NCAA units for their respective conferences).

And quite frankly, I've never understood the argument of "devaluing the regular season" - this reeks of complaints from college football fans who claim that their regular season is the greatest thing since slices bread. The regular season is still important in that it would effectively decide the top 32 teams that would get the bye and automatic inclusion into the field of 64 against potentially weaker teams in the opening round than one would normally see otherwise. If you're 8-seeded UNLV, who would you rather play in the round of 64 - Northern Iowa or Lehigh? As I said in an earlier post, it could balance the field of 64 better than in the past; if I'm Kansas or Kentucky, I'd be much less inclined to play a team like Dayton or North Carolina in my opener when I'm accustomed to beating the Fairfields and Binghamtons of the world.

[Xman95]

All the coaches that want expansion so they can get more "Tournament Appearances" on their resume better watch what they wish for. Honestly, with a 96-team field, coaches at bigger programs should be out if they miss the dance twice in a short period. Think about it. If you're coaching UC, UD, USF, Cal, etc. and miss two in a row, should you not be fired? Hell, if a coach at X goes two years in a row without landing the team in that Top 96, would anyone really support keeping him around? I use X just as an example. I think the expansion would practically assure us of making the tourney every year. Shouldn't even be an issue anymore. But coaches at other programs might want to be careful...

[smileyy]

At the same time, if you're 1-seed and can't been Dayton or UNC (2010 editions) in the first round, you're not going to last much past the second round anyway.

Sure, tougher games might wear you down more. But you also are more likely to be facing teams that have already played an extra game.

[xubrew]

At the same time, if you're 1-seed and can't been Dayton or UNC (2010 editions) in the first round, you're not going to last much past the second round anyway.

Sure, tougher games might wear you down more. But you also are more likely to be facing teams that have already played an extra game.

that's not always a benefit, espeically if there is a day in between games. the rustiness of a #1 seed and not being as familiar with the surroundings can offset them being more rested.

[xubrew]

And quite frankly, I've never understood the argument of "devaluing the regular season" - this reeks of complaints from college football fans who claim that their regular season is the greatest thing since slices bread.

i guess my response to this is that i believe in the concept of the sweet spot. goldilocks should have taught us this lession. if you have to little of someting (college football) it doesn't mean that having too much of something is any better.

several people go in to get haircuts because they don't want their hair to grow too long. if cutting your hair is a good idea, then cutting more of it isn't necessarily a better idea. there is a sweet spot involved.

to me, the perfect sweet spot for at-larges is roughly around however many conferences there are. right now the at-large teams make up slightly more than half of the field. that's enough.

expanding the field DOES water down the regular season. teams won't have to do as well to get in. a poorer seed for not having as goof of a year is is less of a deterrent than not making it at all. i think that you're going to see a lot of the quality ooc games that we're use to seeing decline rapidly. why play on the road if you don't have to?? this year there were eight bcs teams with .500 records or better that weren't selected. lsat year there were ten. the one things that nearly all of them had in common was poor out of conference scheduling. if that doesn't trumpet the importance of scheduling quality teams out of conference, i don't know what does. if the field were at 96, all of those teams are in. if you don't have to play good games to get in, then why play good games?? that's my argument for how it waters down the season. college football has too few and it hurts the regular season. if college basketball were to have too many, it would hurt the regular season as well.

[X-band '01]

Fair point, but you're always going to see teams on the bubble that will be asking themselves what went wrong. And at this point, we don't know if there will be an increase in auto bids once the field does go to 96 teams. I doubt you'll see a cap on teams in the field, but I still think the committee would want to reward a team that schedules tough and goes maybe 10-6 or 11-7 in a midmajor conference instead of someone who goes 6-10 or 7-9 in a BCS conference and does the bare minimum to get by in the OOC.

OOC quality games will never completely go away because of TV games and considerations, but I think certain schools will think twice about playing tough schedules.

[dc_x]

I don't think you will see drastic changes in OOC scheduling. I think what you will see is changes in the perception of what it means to make the tournament.

I've heard a lot of coaches say they are in favor of this because more guys making the tournament means more job security. Currently, it's generally viewed as a successful season if you make the tournament. In an expanded field there will be teams/coaches that make it and the season will still go down as a failure.

If Xavier had a few seasons in a row of getting in the tourney as an 18-seed, Coach Mack would be on the hot seat for sure.

I think earning a seed will still be important because "just getting in" won't be enough any more.

[X-band '01]

The only reason coaches bring up the "job security" angle is that they're clearly looking to avoid saying that it's all about the money (and trying to jam the lower-conference teams). Gene Smith (the OSU AD who will chair the 2011 Selection Committee) is one of the few people who has admitted recently that expansion IS money-driven.