Now that it is all but inevitable that the NCAA Tournament will be going to 96 teams soon, what can we expect? There will surely be intended and unintended consequences, some good and some bad. Before we get to that, let’s be real about the one and only reason why the NCAA would do something that is opposed by almost everyone save some coaches who see the possibility of better job security: television money. Looking to maintain or increase its current haul of cash from CBS, the NCAA had to provide something of value in return. Networks are hemorrhaging money left and right, so ponying up more cash for anything requires something major in return. More teams in the tournament means more games which translates into more money, provided that almost everyone who watches now tunes in to the added games.
The other thing we’ll get out of the way is the complaining that comes every year with the BCS. Yes, this is an abomination. But if you don’t like it, DON’T WATCH!!! If you complain and then turn on your TV to watch when the games come on, the only thing you’re doing is ensuring a 128 team tournament at some point. If the extra games put up tepid ratings, they will go away in short order. The tricky part is that they don’t need huge ratings for it to be a success. There are no high priced actors/actresses to pay, and the announcers who will be doing the games won’t get paid any more. Once you get past the rights fees and usual production costs, the cost is minimal; consequently, the audience required to make it worthwhile isn’t as big as you need for something like CSI or 30 Rock. So if the first round gets 10 million viewers now (not a real number, just a hypothetical) and 7 million after expansion it’s probably a win for whoever gets to show it, especially if it’s on cable.
I am curious as to how the field will shape up. Will it consist of the current crop plus the NIT field, or will there be some other makeup? Will the extra bids slant more towards second and third place schools from mid-major and low major conferences, or eighth and ninth place teams from power conferences? I’m guessing more of the latter than the former. And how will the seeding play out? Will today’s 15 and 16 seeds maintain their current level, or will they become tomorrow’s 23 and 24 seeds? I think we know the answer to that one already.
So what can we expect to result from these changes? A lot of things, mostly bad, such as:
Fewer Cinderella stories: One of the big draws of the tournament as it is comes from the first weekend, when we get to see the Butlers and Cornells of the world take down higher seeded teams from major conferences. That will be a major casualty of the new format. As I mentioned earlier, the lower seeded teams of today will get pushed further down the seeding ladder, and many if not most of them will get cast off into the lower 32 teams that will have to play in the opening round. Which means that most of them will get taken out early, and instead of 20 or so teams that would be considered real upset winners should they prevail, we could be down to single digits by the time we get to the round of 64. Teams like Cornell and Northern Iowa probably won’t be able to win three games to make the sweet 16 instead of two. The war of attrition favors the schools from bigger conferences; the more games you have to play, the better their chances are.
Bad Basketball: We just had a final game where one of the participants was coming off a victory in which it shot 30 percent from the field and went 10 minutes without a basket. Expect more of that. With more mediocre, inconsistent teams getting invited expect to see more missed baskets and turnovers, and more stretches where teams can’t hit the broadside of a barn. When UNC goes .500 for the season, it’s not because they got beat on buzzer-beaters 12 times. It’s because they had issues on offense and defense, which manifested themselves on the court. The same can be said for those 20-win teams from power conferences that missed the cut due to upset losses during the season. In a 96 team field, we will get to see those teams front and center, and it won’t be pretty.
More one-and-done players: OK, maybe not, but the increased exposure that will come with more tournament berths handed out will result in more guys jumping ship early. Let’s look at UNC again. They suffered from a youth movement prompted by losing the core of their championship team from 2009, and toiled in the NIT in front of a small television audience. Now if this same unit, which will be better next year and a probable contender the year afterward had gotten a big television audience in the NCAA tournament and won a game or two, there would probably be at least one player who would buy into the announcer hype about his game and jump to the NBA, leaving UNC a man or two down going into what’s supposed to be a better year in 2010-11.
So is there anything good to come out of this? Not really. Sorry, folks.