April 6, 2010

As most people probably already know, there is serious talk about expanding the NCAA tournament to 96 teams (read as: A done deal).  In a move that I’m sure surprises everyone, it seems as though the move to expand the tournament may be about money.

I’ll give you a minute to recover from the shock.

The long and short of it?  The NCAA recognizes, as does everyone else, that the NCAA tournament makes money and is arguably the most exciting playoff in American sports.  They also realize that expanding the tournament, apparently even at the cost of watering down games, can bring in more revenue to the NCAA coffers.  Fortunately for them, they just happened to be in a year where they have the ability to opt out of their television contract with CBS.

How serendipitous!

Any plans to expand the tournament hinge on the NCAA’s $6 billion television deal with CBS.

The 11-year deal, signed in 1999, has a mutual opt-out until July 31. The NCAA has already spoken with numerous networks about expansion, so the opt-out is at least on the table, and adding 32 more teams is certainly going to bring in more revenue. (via ESPN)

Sources say that the NCAA would be leaving roughly $2 billion on the table if they were to opt out, but the additional games the NCAA can bring to a network to broadcast would seemingly allow the NCAA to push up the monies in any television deal so that the $2 billion could be recouped fairly easily.

Well, fine…the NCAA may potentially be trying to squeeze/use leverage to obtain a more lucrative contract.  But, its not like anyone has ever done that before.  At least they’re going to retain the precious notion of the student-athlete…right?

Oh…some people are missing a whole week of school?

Q. We’re misunderstanding each other. Under the new model that you laid out, you play 64 teams Thursday/Friday. 32 advance to games Saturday/Sunday. Then you are down after those games to 32 teams.
GS: Right.

Q. You’re saying you play games in the round of 32 Tuesday/Wednesday. They would then advance to regionals when?
GS: They would continue into the regional as it’s normally scheduled now.

Q. So they would go Tuesday to Thursday, Wednesday to Friday?
GS: Right.

Q. So they miss an entire week of school. That’s what I’m trying to get.
GS: If you listened to my original answer, they leave now on Tuesday.

Q. I’m talking about the second week, not the first week. They play a game Saturday/Sunday, play a game Tuesday or Wednesday, then go directly to the regional. Tell me when in that second week they’re going to be in class.
GS: The entire first week, the majority of the teams would be in class. (via ESPN)

That little gem is a part of the transcript between the Washington Posts’ John Feinstein and NCAA SVP of basketball/business strategy Greg Shaheen.  I’ll save you the trouble of reading the rest of the transcript; Feinstein keeps asking the same question and Shaheen keeps refusing to answer.

To review…the NCAA is full of student-athletes who are going to be used a bargaining chip to raise more money for the NCAA with an expanded tournament, all while causing the “student-athletes” to miss more school than ever before.

Student. Athletes….Right.

So…for all intents and purposes the expansion to 96 teams is a money grab with a complete disregard for the NCAA’s own rules regarding amateurism and student-athletes.  But why?

Maybe, its the solvency of collegiate athletics.

Huh?

The vast majority of NCAA sports gush red ink, which is certainly related to why the NCAA is currently in a desperate bid for a cash infusion via the expansion of the NCAA Tournament from 64 to 96 teams.

The extra dollars raised by the expansion of the March Madness field will go to being able to continue to stage an eye-popping 87 NCAA Championships per year. That’s precisely why the NCAA Board of Directors is increasing the men’s basketball tournament field – despite what the governing body may tell the public.

Those additional monies though will not go directly to any schools, who have their own problems with massive shortfalls. Those shortfalls are precisely the reason you are now seeing rampant talk of conference expansion and possible super conferences.

The extraordinary debt incurred by second division schools in BCS conferences because of overextended athletic departments cannot be sustained. But a conference expansion means more television and bowl game revenue generated to prop up the dreg schools unable to compete on the field and at the gate. Though eventually that Ponzi scheme will run dry too. (via Sports By Brooks)

It makes sense.  If you aren’t a high profile basketball or football team, its highly probable that your program is losing money annually.  Of course, with the NCAA being a non-profit, I would want to know exactly how much money is needed to “prop up the dreg schools”; especially at a time when the NCAA is bringing in approximately $4 billion a year in licensing and are charging over $1 million per 30 second ad during the basketball championship game.

At some point you have to question whether you already have enough money to keep that womens field hockey team a float, or if maybe the NCAA isn’t as “non-profit” as they seem.

Which makes the Ed O’Bannon v. NCAA lawsuit all that more interesting.  Assuming there isn’t a settlement early on,  the NCAA financial records and books will be open to scrutiny due to legal discovery process.  Although they’re being examined to determine revenue generated from utilizing players images without their permission  (without paying them money in return) in the O’Bannon case, the fact that the books will be examined at all will clearly spark discussion about any revenue producing endeavors undertaken by the NCAA.

In short, we know that the NCAA is all about the money; the proposed 96 team basketball tournament merely cements that fact.  The next question?  Whether or not they’re not only blurring the definition of the “student-athlete”, but also the idea of a non-profit.

Be Sociable, Share!