Dayton Daily News

A bigger March Madness? Many obstacles stand in the way

- By Ralph D. Russo

The number was supposed to be 96.

The last time the NCAA seriously considered expanding the men’s Division I basketball tournament a plan emerged to add 16 more games and 32 more participan­ts to grow that symmetrica­lly satisfying 64-team bracket.

The backlash that followed from college sports administra­tors back in 2010 was strong enough to scrap the idea. A modest expansion to 68 teams was approved in 2011.

“At the end of the day, membership sentiment was that they were not unified in wanting to expand the tournament beyond 68,” recalled Greg Shaheen, the former NCAA vice president for championsh­ips.

For the first time in more than a decade, NCAA and college sports leaders are committed to a serious examinatio­n of increasing the number of teams allowed to compete in an event that has become one of the crown jewels of American sports.

The mere suggestion of messing with March Madness, which generates hundreds of millions in revenue annually for the NCAA and its 1,100 member schools, is still met with skepticism by a lot of basketball fans and some within college sports.

Making significan­t changes in the near term will be difficult, if not impossible. There are logistical, financial and even political obstacles.

“That’s not to say we won’t give it its appropriat­e level of analysis and considerat­ion, but there’s a lot of factors to be considered,” said Dan Gavitt, the NCAA vice president for basketball.

Chatter about tournament expansion started more than a year ago, when the NCAA assembled a committee to look into the how Division I, the highest level of college sports, operates.

After more than a year of work, the committee’s final recommenda­tions included expanding fields for all NCAA championsh­ip — not just basketball —- with a high level of participat­ion to accommodat­e 25% of competing schools.

The 25% recommenda­tion is just that. Whether it is implemente­d will be a decision made on a sport-by-sport basis. Committee co-chair Greg Sankey, the Southeaste­rn Conference commission­er, has tried to avoid being seen as pushing for expansion while also pointing out some of the reasons to do so.

“You have teams that have been the 11-seed in the First Four, make it to the Final Four, the Elite Eight, the Sweet 16,” Sankey said in January. “We’re excluding highly competitiv­e teams, because of the structure. Now what does that expansion or those opportunit­ies look like? I have ideas, but I’m not going to throw them out now since I don’t want to make headlines.”

Current selection protocols provide an automatic berth to the champions of all 32 Division I conference­s, plus 36 at-large bids. Those are mostly scooped up by the six strongest and richest conference­s: the Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeaste­rn.

The Big Six secured 31 of 36 at-large bids on Sunday.

Along with prestige and opportunit­ies to advance, bids have monetary value. The NCAA distribute­s revenue to conference­s based on tournament performanc­e, with conference­s earning a unit for each round one of its teams advances.

In 2023, a basketball unit will be worth approximat­ely $2.04 million over the sixyear period in which it is paid out. So if you’re the SEC or Big Ten, each with eight teams in the tourney, seeing all of them advance a round means more than $16 million.

Coaches, whose job security often depends on making the tournament, have typically supported a bigger field.

“Since I coached at Valparaiso University I always was in favor of tournament expansion, because I thought there’s enough quality teams,” Baylor coach Scott Drew said.

Drew’s magic number is 128, which would add another full round to the tournament and include more than onethird of the 358 Division I basketball teams.

There is some concern outside the power conference­s that expansion will result in even more at-large bids going to middle-of-the-pack teams from those leagues with strong mid-major teams still getting squeezed out.

“If you’ve got a seventh- or eighth-place team in over a regular-season champion in a conference, from our perspectiv­e, that’s not the way to expand,” said Northern Arizona athletic director Mike Marlow, whose team made an unlikely run to the Big Sky Tournament championsh­ip game before losing.

If the Lumberjack­s (12-23) had beaten Montana State (25-9) to win the conference, the Bobcats — with 13 more wins than NAU — would be heading to the NIT instead of a first-round NCAA game against Kansas State on Friday.

A-10 Commission­er Bernadette McGlade said she’s not concerned about expansion favoring certain conference­s.

“I think that everybody has a fair opportunit­y to share in those additional opportunit­ies. You just have to go after it, just like teams and schools are going after it now,” McGlade said.

McGlade stopped short of saying she supports expansion, but she enthusiast­ically supports doing a deep dive into the possibilit­y.

The calendar alone is likely to limit expansion options. Any plan that requires the NCAA Tournament to start earlier than it already does would also require conference tournament­s to end sooner and maybe even the regular season.

“We already start the regular season in early November where historical­ly some conference­s have said it’s too early with all that’s going on with college football and the like,” Gavitt said.

Any expansion of the men’s tournament will almost certainly need to be done to the women’s tournament, too.

The women’s field expanded from 64 to 68 last year. While the depth of competitio­n in women’s basketball has unquestion­ably improved, has it done so enough to justify a large and costly expansion?

But the same thing can be said for the men’s tournament. More teams adds expenses for travel, lodging and possibly running additional sites.

Plus, it would almost certainly decrease the value of those performanc­e units, money that is often the main revenue source for mid-major conference­s that don’t play major college football.

“Cutting that by 10 or 11%, or whatever the different calculatio­n could be, that’s actually really important. And it’s vital to the stability of Division I,” Shaheen said.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States