The Sports Arsenal

The rumblings are getting louder that the NCAA tournament will expand. The train seems to be getting closer to the station. A review of the timeline:

August 11, 2022 (from an article by Pat Forde in Sports Illustrated):

Southeastern Conference commissioner Greg Sankey, probably the most influential person in college athletics, said Thursday he wants to take “a fresh look” at the NCAA men’s basketball tournament—perhaps with an eye toward expansion of the current 68-team field…

…There has been a rising tide of concern about being left out of March Madness among conferences that send only their tournament winners to the NCAA tourney—the underdogs who so often give the event their best moments and unique flavor. Some of that comes from comments Sankey reportedly made to members of the Division I Council earlier this summer about the NCAA tournament looking different in the future.

Sankey stresses that he said the tourney “could” change, not that it would. But the suspicion among some mid-major and low-major programs is that their automatic bids would instead be given to more teams from the rich and powerful multi-bid leagues.

“March Madness will become much more controlled by a handful of schools,” Florida Gulf Coast president Michael Martin told a Fort Myers TV station recently. “And automatic qualifiers that we now get from being in the A-Sun will disappear.”

July 13, 2023 (from an article by the AP):

The NCAA Division I men’s basketball committee discussed possible expansion of March Madness at its meetings this week but said no moves were imminent to increase the field beyond the current 68 teams.

“Whether the tournament expands or not remains to be seen,” sad Dan Gavitt, the NCAA’s senior vice president of basketball.

Earlier this year, the NCAA Division I board of directors approved recommendations by the DI transformation committee that included allowing one quarter of teams in bigger sports to compete in championship events. That could mean expanding the fields in both men’s and women’s basketball up to 90 teams.

September 11, 2023 (from an article by Dana O’Neil in The Athletic):

Multiple sources told The Athletic that a stretched bracket likely needs to be in place in time for the 2025 tournament, after the reorgs in the Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and ACC take over.

The reason? Simple preservation.

Multiple sources who have worked with or served on the NCAA Tournament selection committee agree that a small compromise in expanding the field  — somewhere north of the current 68, but ideally less than 96 teams — could serve as the ideal best olive branch to prevent the real threat to the whole operation: namely that the football-playing schools opt out of the tourney altogether, and form their own.

January 25, 2024 (from an article by Ross Dellenger in Yahoo! Sports):

…commissioners of the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and, yes, even the Pac-12 opened dialogue with [NCAA president Charlie] Baker about their wish to examine NCAA tournament expansion…

…discussions between the commissioners and NCAA go beyond the topic of revenue and also include the growing wish for more access in the form of at-large spots. In the meeting with Baker, commissioners were transparent about their desire for more access in a 68-team field that includes 32 automatic qualifying spots — 27 of which go to non-power leagues.

“I want to see the best teams competing for a national championship, no different than (the Big Ten and SEC) want to see in football,” [Big XII commissioner Brett] Yormark said. “I’m not sure that is currently happening.”

How to expand the tournament is a lingering question, Yormark and [ACC commissioner Jim] Phillips acknowledge.

Do you eliminate automatic qualifying spots to small-conference champions? That move is sure to backfire politically at a time when congressional help is sought.

Do you simply add more at-large spots to the field? That complicates an already crammed schedule.

And if you expand the men’s event, wouldn’t the women’s tournament need expansion, too?

Commissioners describe Baker as “understanding” and “receptive” to their points, paving the way for future modifications.

—

Now, would increasing the number of power conference teams in the tournament improve the event? Of course not. For one thing, all of the good teams (and quite a few mediocre ones) in those leagues already make the tourney.

After all the changes in the main five leagues (following the demise of the Pac-12, and including the Big East as a “power” conference in hoops), there are 75 schools that will be in those increasingly bloated conferences for the 2024-25 season. Of those, 38 (50.67%) made the tournament in 2023. 

Breaking it down a bit further: of the 34 schools that will be in the Big 10 and SEC (the “Power Two”), 17 made an appearance in last year’s March Madness — exactly 50%.

Meanwhile, only 10.45% of schools not in power leagues were represented in the 2023 tournament. This is why the ‘25% of all teams should be in the tourney’ argument is intellectually dishonest. The power brokers are obviously not interested in expanding the field to add more of those teams.

However, Greg Sankey and company will get what they want. We all know that.

—

The mission for the decision makers: cram as many power-conference teams into the event as possible while A) not causing a public (and political) backlash by getting rid of the smaller schools’ access to the tourney, and B) maintaining as a focus the 64-team main draw, which is what most casual — and many diehard — fans think of as the actual tournament (including all the pools/brackets/etc. that are associated with it).

I suspect the solution could be to combine workarounds from past tournaments.

(Trigger warning for enthusiasts of small conferences: you’re not going to like any of this.)

—

In coming up with this format, I made two assumptions. First, that around two-thirds of the teams in the power leagues would make the tourney — basically, 50 spots, give or take one or two. I suspect that would be the least of their demands.

I also anticipate those 50 teams would all be seeded directly into the main draw of 64, because they will want to maximize exposure (with a possible exception which I’ll get to later).

The 20 “lowest-ranked” conferences will be determined in the summer before the start of the season, based on a formula that consists of ratings from previous seasons (or perhaps just the prior campaign).

The champions of those leagues will be automatically sent into a preliminary bracket. This would still technically be considered part of the NCAA tournament, in an effort to avoid angering various constituencies. Many national media members will presumably go along with this notion and promote it accordingly, partly because some are easily manipulated saps, others are only interested in power-conference programs, and a fair number are easily manipulated saps who are only interested in power-conference programs.

The 20 teams will then compete in what is in effect a two-round mini-tournament, narrowing the 20 to 5 squads that will ultimately make the round of 64. 

To do this, the conferences will all have to complete their league tourneys in the first weekend of conference tournament action (many of them already do so). The ten matchups in the first preliminary round could be held following the Selection Show, with six on Sunday (a triple-header on two Paramount-affiliated networks) and four on Monday (a double-header on those same two networks). Then there will be three games on Tuesday and two on Wednesday which will produce the 5 survivors (similar to the “First Four” games that are part of the current setup).

There might also be a third game on Wednesday night to get the overall number of NCAA tournament teams to 80 (rather than 79). This could be a “last one in” game between two power-conference teams fighting for the final spot in the main draw. I could see the TV folks requesting a game like that.

—

Some aspects of the potential scenario outlined above would not be unprecedented. There were “play-in” games in the NCAA tournament as recently as 1983 (a 52-team field with eight 12-seeds that faced each other in an opening round game) and 1984 (53 teams; two of the five 11-seeds played in an opening round game as well).

In 1991, though, the NCAA did something really stupid. It took the six lowest-rated conferences (as determined prior to the season) and matched them up against each other, eliminating three of those teams before the tournament. And no, they didn’t get credit for an NCAA tournament appearance. Two of the three eliminated teams were from HBCUs. 

That probably isn’t going to happen again anytime soon, at least not under the NCAA umbrella. If the inevitable breakaway in football by the big-brand schools eventually comes to include hoops, though, all bets are off.

—

All of that is speculation, to be sure. I think something like it is on the horizon, however. Whatever the eventual format is, it likely won’t be good news for fans of the sport, or for many of the schools that compete.

Filed under: Basketball | Tagged: Big 10, college basketball, NCAA, NCAA Tournament, SEC |