The NCAA Tournament Must Expand or Die

This week in an interview with Seth Davis, NCAA President Charlie Baker said they are looking at expanding the NCAA Tournament. Proposals are focused on expanding to 72 or 76 teams. Diehard fans may not like it but the reality is if the NCAA Tournament is going to continue to exist beyond 2032, it MUST expand. This is a simple economic reality. In 2022, we laid out a plan for expansion to 80. Given the recent news, it's time to revisit the topic.

Here are the topics we are going to discuss:

1. Explain why expansion is necessary.
2. Establish a target expansion number that fits within the current November-early April calendar
   
3. Retain automatic bids for all 32 leagues.
4. Practical implementation of an 80-team tournament.
   
5. Rebutting counter-points people will likely make.
   

Readers need to understand expansion is coming. This is not an opinion and going back to 64 is not an option (or rather, not in a way anyone wants, but more on that later). It is a simple fact that the NCAA Tournament field must grow. If it does not, the NCAA Tournament will not exist beyond 2032. This premise is the reality we begin this article with.

I write this as someone who has watched the NCAA Tournament fervently since I was a teenager. I love the Tournament, I love the pageantry and passion of college basketball. I love the underdogs and the wall-to-wall days of games. Everything included here is my attempt to continue the discussion of how to not only save the NCAA Tournament, but preserve the best things about it. If you too want to see the NCAA Tournament survive, I only ask that you read and share this article. Maybe if the conversation gets loud enough and is heard by those influential in college basketball, there's a chance we get a model that keeps the automatic bids, keeps the Cinderella stories, while acknowledging the reality that the NCAA Tournament needs to provide more profit to the high-major leagues to remain viable.

Why Expansion is Necessary

SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey was co-chair of the NCAA Transformation Committee that recommended NCAA postseason tournaments for sports with over 200 teams to invite 25% of their members as a guideline. Currently the NCAA Tournament invites 68 of 364 teams, just 18.7% of the teams. This is a far cry from the number the Transformation Committee called for and significantly less than in 1985 when the NCAA Tournament expanded to 64 teams of 286 member institutions (22.4%). Sankey has also called for the NCAA to stop "giving away" bids to small conference teams. ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips, Big 10 Commissioner Tony Pettiti, and Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark have all called for expansion. And while in 1985 the top-6 leagues (including Big East and Pac-12) had 55 combined teams the current P4 are comprised of 68 teams.

From an economic and ratings perspective, the NCAA Tournament needs the P4 members to continue participating if the tournament will be economically viable. NCAA Tournament ratings hinge heavily on who is playing. Andrei Greska at Paint Touches broke down the ratings from 2019-2023 based on who was playing. He broke teams into two categories which yielded three game types. The first were Power-5 teams (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC) and the second was Non-P5 (all other leagues including the Big East). After the grid, we will refer to these leagues as the Power-4 due to the contraction of the Pac-12 as a high-major league. Here are the ratings disparities for the three game types possible from those two groups:

A breakaway tournament could have a 64-team field, which would appeal to traditionalists, and do so by inviting only their members. It might take a couple years for fans to get used to 16-seeds like Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, Michigan, and Arizona State, but ultimately an underdog is an underdog if it's the best game on TV. Maybe they invite the Big East or a few mid-majors, but a new contract using P4 vs P4 ratings would make more money than the current NCAA Tournament setup and the money involved would ensure no one from outside the power structure would say no. Last year there were 56 P4 and Big East teams in the NCAA Tournament or invited to the NIT, and that's without going to the bottom of these leagues.

Why would the P4 leagues want to establish their own championship where they control the money allocation and inclusion criteria like they did with the BCS? Quite simply, the NCAA Tournament is woefully compensated for its value. In 2016, the NCAA agreed to an 8-year extension of the existing NCAA Tournament contract. At the time, the contract was scheduled to end in 2024. There was no need to extend the contract at that time, but they doubled the existing length without significantly increasing revenue in that time period. From the outside, it looks like a fiscal mistake. Compare the value of the NBA television contract with that of the NCAA:

Strikes and gaps in national broadcast contracts led to dropoffs in both the MLB and NHL, but in 2013, MLB and the NCAA Tournament were nearly identical, but MLB signed a new deal that more than doubled their revenue, and they again had a significant jump in 2021. The NHL had a minimal national contract that more than tripled in 2022.

The bottom line is this. The NCAA Tournament is massively undervalued. In the time period that other leagues have doubled, tripled, or septupled their media rights deal, the NCAAT has barely increased. Compare the percentage increases of the NCAA compared to other professional and collegiate leagues:

Currently the NCAA Tournament is worth about $1.1 billion per year. But in terms of audience, it often outdraws its closest peer, the NBA. From 1997 through 2021, the NCAA Championship Game outdrew the highest rated NBA Finals game in 14 of the 24 years:

So why is expansion necessary? Because the money generated by the NCAA Tournament is inadequate, the current TV contract ensures it will remain that way for 8 more years, the Power-4 Commissioners are all calling for expansion, the NCAA Tournament needs the P4 programs to drive ratings for leverage to increase the contract value when the opportunity comes up, and the P4 now have a large enough membership that they can put on a 64-team tournament of their own without additional NCAA member institutions. Outside of expansion, there is no other way for the NCAA to increase revenue as the P4 are demanding before 2032. As the title says, the NCAA Tournament must expand or die.

Expanding to 80

As mentioned above, the 1985 NCAA Tournament included 22.4% of the Division I membership. If the field went to 80 today, the inclusion number would be 22.0% of current Division I schools. To reach the Transformation Committee's 25% target, the number would be 91, which likely leads to a 96-team field. 80 is in alignment with the historic inclusion number and makes for a cleaner introduction to the Tournament.

The current format goes from 68 to 64 over two nights. Because of this, it allows for two games broadcast back to back on Tuesday and Wednesday. The Central Standard Time TV window is from 5:00 pm through 10:00 pm, with games tipping 5:30 and 8:00, barring games running over for delays or overtime. More First Four games would mean more First Four time slots. Using the current 30-minute delay between starts (typical for the First Round games) the schedule could change without really upsetting the prime time window much. Below, the first line shows the current approximate schedule, with two games getting about five and a half hours of programming. By increasing that to a total seven hour window, the NCAA could accommodate eight games per night on Tuesday and Wednesday with the vast majority in prime time:

On cable television, this would mean adding more channels. But while it might be difficult for cable, with streaming options this wouldn't be nearly as difficult. Whether it would be using Max, Paramount, Peacock, or a different streaming service, these games could be made available. And while no single app has the broadcast penetration of TruTV (about 90 million households) there are estimated to be slightly over 100 million households with high-speed internet. We are already seeing leagues put games exclusively on ESPN+, Max, and Peacock, there's no reason to think the NCAA couldn't do the same for the First Four sites, especially if there were at least one TV hub that could switch between games when they are in high leverage situations.

Charlie Baker has pointed out that stretching out the season beyond the first weekend in April is a non-starter because of the Masters. The current contract with CBS will not allow them to add an additional weekend, and even if they changed carriers after 2032, the NCAA would not want to compete with another major sporting event that takes up a full weekend when they would be trying to draw eyes to their most valuable games.

This is another reason why 80 is better than 96. In order to trim 96 to 64, you need to play 32 games, the same number of games played on the opening Thursday and Friday of the Tournament. Having Tuesday and Wednesday full-day marathons would tax all but the most diehard college basketball fans. An 80-team field allows the Tournament to stay with the prime time Tuesday/Wednesday schedule above while also giving more of a true NCAA Tournament feel to those days because it isn't just one game at a time.

Currently, the NCAA season fits nicely between the end of baseball in October and the Masters. While much of the season is competing with both NFL and college football, they are able to take center stage from mid-February through the first week of April before the Masters. It's done before the NBA or NHL playoffs start in full. The current schedule is perfect to maximize college basketball's impact while minimizing other sport competition.

Retain 32 Automatic Bids

We are including the soon-to-be-reformed Pac-12 as one of the automatic bids. That said, Greg Sankey has already floated removing the automatic bids from the field, even if that comment looked a bit silly after his SEC program Kentucky lost to Oakland out of the Horizon. Nonetheless, it's clear that while tournament expansion with more at-large bids for high-majors to potentially earn is a goal, getting even more bids by cutting out the low and mid majors is also a consideration. Take a look at the 2023 payouts by league:

Ultimately, while every round of the NCAA tournament has value to the teams and the leagues they represent, it is the deep runs that really shift money away from the big boys. It isn't the 18 conferences earning $1M each, it's the when CUSA, or the Ivy, or the NEC have one team taking multiple credits that hits the bigger leagues. With the reminder that this is about finding the best way to expand, and being cognizant that benefiting the P4 leagues is necessary for NCAA Tournament survival, continuing to split the First Four games between at-large and auto-bids is something that will need to continue. This serves three purposes.

First, it ensures the low and mid majors will be included, though the opportunity for deep advancement will be limited because by splitting the 32 teams playing at the First Four sites, 16 will be the lowest automatic bids and that means eight instead of two will be eliminated before the Round of 64. The same will be true for at-large teams, so while there will be twelve at-large teams added to compete with the current four at-large teams in the First Four, only eight of those will advance to the main bracket.

Second, because eight automatic bids will advance from the First Four, that means eight leagues earning two or more NCAA credits that otherwise would typically earn one (barring a double-digit seed upset). Financially, this is a win for the smaller leagues, even if it limits the number that can advance further.

Third, it gives that additional opportunity to coaches, student athletes, and fans to enjoy earning a win in the NCAA Tournament. None of the teams that won games in Dayton ever looked sad at the end of the experience. And while thus far only Fairleigh Dickinson has gone from an automatic bid to Dayton and won a game in the Round of 64, that is the opportunity all of these teams will be playing for, and half of them will get that win. The NCAA Tournament isn't just to determine who the National Champion is, it's an experience that is shared by everyone who loves college basketball, and expanding the personal nature of that experience to more coaches, players, and fans to enjoy it when their team accomplishes something does not diminish the tournament itself.

Implementing an 80-team field

Ultimately, one of the biggest questions will always be "what will this look like?" To start simply, here is the 68-team NCAA Tournament field from 2024. Bear in mind Colorado State is out of order because they were moved to make the play-in games work.

• Seed Lines 1-10: These would be the top forty teams in the field. All of them would receive a bye to the round of 64. Eight of these would have to be automatic bids.
• Seed Lines 11-12: These would be the last sixteen at-large teams. These teams will always seed into the 11-12 lines and the winners will play the top eight non-protected seeds in the Round of 64.
• Seed Lines 13-14: These are the automatic bids who rate as 9-16 among auto bids. They receive a bye to the round of 64.
• Seed Lines 15-16: These are the last sixteen automatic bids. Winners will advance to play teams on the top two seed lines.

Here is what the 2024 NCAA Tournament would have looked like using the existing 68-team field, the NCAA's official First Four Out, and the top two seed lines of the NIT. St. John's (turned down NIT) and Providence (top NIT 3-seed) were also given bids.

This scheduling will also work because each site is guaranteed two play-in games. Sites with a 1-seed will have a 16-seed play-in game. Sites with a 2-seed will have a 15-seed play-in game. Sites with a 3-seed will have an 11-seed play-in game. Sites with a 4-seed will have a 12-seed play-in game. This ensures that both at-larges and automatic bids will continue to participate in play-in games, the best non-high major automatic bids continue to qualify automatically for the Round of 64, and the entire NCAA Tournament fits within the current calendar.

This would also most likely allow the NIT to continue. While it would be diminished in quality, the NIT hasn't been a viable competitor to the NCAA Tournament for well over 40 years. The NIT is a fan service to the next level of teams and additional content for diehard fans who are hungry for college basketball on non-NCAA days. In this scenario, only nine of teams in the Field of 80 were 2024 NIT teams. There were twelve high-major teams not invited and the CBI Tournament had seven 20+ win teams that did not earn NIT invites. There are enough teams out there to fill that field even with a Field of 80.

Rebutting the Counter-Points

There will always be pushback, so here are some of the counter-arguments we expect:

I'm only in favor of expansion if there are auto-bids for regular season champions

This is a non-starter. That means you are guaranteeing as many as 54 spots in the tournament to non-HM teams. Currently, we have at most 40 bids available to the P4 schools (if they get their automatic qualifiers and all 36-at-large teams). Even if the field expanded to 96, the P4 are not going to be on board with expanding a field by 28 bids when they could receive as few as 2 of them. Maybe if the field expands to 128 or more, but that makes calendar issues more likely. Each league is guaranteed one bid and each league decides how they award that single bid. It's not feasible to consider otherwise.

Then don't watch it. No one is forcing anyone to watch any games. However this would give 12 more fanbases reasons to tune in, and I'm guessing no matter how much you dislike expansion, if your team is playing on Tuesday or Wednesday you will be watching. It would also make Tuesday and Wednesday night content quantity on par with a Thursday/Friday window. The First Four wouldn't feel like extra games tacked on to the front for money, it would feel like the tournament proper where you are flipping between channels or running the YouTube quad box.

I'm fine with expansion, but make all the play-in games at-large teams and guarantee automatic qualifiers a spot in the Round of 64

This seems reasonable until you do the math. 16 teams need to be eliminated to get from 80 to 64. That means the 16 auto-bids need to be replaced with 16 at-large teams. Look at the Field of 80, start with 37-Nevada, and count up to 22-Clemson. That's how far you have to go to get 16 more at-large teams. When you shift the automatic bids up it also makes lines 11-16 all automatic bids. By doing that, the at-large play-in bids would fall on lines 7-10. This would be a logistical nightmare for cities that can host 8 fanbases but might struggle with 12. In addition, the best chance many of these lower leagues have of earning additional NCAA credits is by winning a First Four game. This would increase their odds to do so while trimming the overall number of one-bid league teams on Thursday/Friday to improve the odds the P4 can maximize credits. Money matters, and you need the P4, so this is just a casualty of that reality.

Most of the bids in the Field of 80 are going to high-majors, there should be limits on how many they can get

The whole reason for this model is to make sure the high-majors continue to participate in this tournament. That means fewer automatic bids advancing to the Round of 64, but at least they are still included. That means more high-majors earning bids and advancing, but that's the cost of keeping them in the field. We've already seen the college football postseason radically altered by money and power conferences trying to consolidate the spoils. They have the numbers to create their own tournament entirely or run their own tournament while only inviting a handful of non-P4 schools. Right now, we're trying to figure out a model that will make them happy while preserving what we love about the current tournament field. If everyone agreed on a limit to the number of teams from a single league in play-in games, I could see that, but the floor would probably be set at four (this Field of 80 has four Big East and Big 12 teams) and that doesn't seem like much of a limit.

Adding teams will dilute the field quality

If we use this model, this is mathematically untrue. By any metric, when we get to 64, the six advancing teams added from the at-large play-in games will be better than the six eliminated from the automatic bid play-in games. Further, the teams on the 16 line will be 15/16 seed quality, the teams on the 15 line will be 13/14 seed quality, and that will push better teams down the field to give better chances at more competitive first round games. From 1985 through 2010, 15 and 16-seeds were 4-204 (1.96% chance of victory) in the NCAA Tournament's first round with zero making the Sweet 16. Since the 2010 expansion, 15 and 16-seeds are 9-103 (8.04% chance of victory) with four making the Sweet 16. Expansion has already exponentially improved the quality of play at the bottom of the bracket, and further expansion would only escalate that faster. The field quality would improve and while there would be fewer automatic bids in the Round of 64, the ones that make it there will be better teams.

The Tournament is perfect at 68, don't change it

Anyone who's been watching the tournament since before 2001 knows this isn't true. You can argue it was perfect at 64, but the only way the field goes back to 64 is if the P4 breaks away and kills the single-bid leagues in the process. Further, the First Four have never fully felt like the Tournament. That's why NCAA pools don't count those games in your scoring and why ratings spike by more than 50% when we get to day games on Thursday and Friday. The First Four has always been an add-on, but going to a full two-night slate with games in rotation, just like we have once the Round of 64 kicks off, will make those nights feel a lot more like the experience of the NCAA Tournament. 68 was never as good as 64, and going to 80 will feel a lot closer to the pre-2001 perfection than anything since ever has.

Ultimately, the reality is that without the P4, the NCAA Tournament cannot survive. Realignment has also put schools in a position where the P4 could viably break off using either only their own members or with minimal bids given to the Big East and other non-P4 football programs. If the NCAA Tournament and the emotions that come with it are to be saved, expansion has to happen and the changes made need to primarily benefit the programs that drive ratings. If they break off, whether grudgingly or willingly, fans will follow to a "perfect" 64-team P4 field because when you get to the second and third weekends, ratings are driven by the presence of the powerhouse programs. This model and plan is not an attack on what we currently have, it's an attempt to save some semblance of the Tournament we have all come to love over our lifetimes..