Zeigler, Heeke think NCAA tourney expansion would create more opportunities
On April 1, the day before this year’s Final Four in Indianapolis, NCAA Vice President Greg Shaheen outlined the possibilities of a 96-team Division I men’s basketball tournament, that could begin as soon as next season.
It was not met with much praise.
Critics pointed to this year’s big upsets, Butler’s run to the Final Four and overall booming interest as a sign that the current 65-team bracket is flawless. Other questions arose about the NCAA’s motivation – additional revenue — and the possibility of more missed classes in the middle of a semester for teams that advance furthest.
CMU and Mid-American Conference officials say the lack of details about a 96-team tournament’s selection process makes it difficult to gauge how it would affect the conference.
“I’m kind of sitting on the fence right now, largely because none of us have received sufficient information to make a really good determination whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing,” said MAC Commissioner Jon Steinbrecher. “Historical data would suggest that we would likely get multiple teams into the event.”
The NCAA Board of Directors convene April 29 to possibly vote on proposals that could end the association’s 11-year, $6 billion television deal with CBS, expand the tournament and sell television rights the highest bidder or combination of bidders.
But Steinbrecher said there is no such proposal drafted yet.
“If there is a contract proposal in place — and as of today there is not one — (the board of directors) would give it consideration at that time,” Steinbrecher said.
CMU Athletics Director Dave Heeke said he thinks an expansion would benefit the MAC.
“I think it’s good for programs like ours to have an opportunity to be in postseason play,” Heeke said. “I think it’s a very positive move. I don’t feel like it dilutes the overall tournament.”
POSSIBLE REVENUE
Steinbrecher said the tournament generates more than 95 percent of the NCAA’s revenue. With some athletic departments struggling to keep other programs afloat, Steinbrecher said more games would help that much more – but making a decision solely on money would be irresponsible.
“There is no doubt that one of the driving forces behind looking at an expanded field is the need to continue to grow the revenue of the association,” he said.
The NCAA returns the majority of the money generated to member institutions. Each year, teams are playing not only for their own programs, but also for the rest of the teams in their conference. Money is allocated by tabulating “units” that are earned by how many games a team plays in the tournament.
This season, Ohio earned two units for beating Georgetown and advancing to the second round.
Steinbrecher said the Bobcats’ tourney stay will earn the MAC between $1.2 and $1.4 million in the next six seasons, as the units become more valuable each year.
This year, the MAC’s six units for the past six NCAA Tournaments were worth $222,206 apiece, a total of $1,333,236. In the MAC, the money is split 13 ways between programs. Other conferences do it differently, Heeke said. But each MAC school received $102,557, an average of $17,092 per year.
Heeke said the financial benefits of expansion could be too much to pass up.
“There’s some revenue there,” he said. “But unless you go deep into the tournament, there is not significant revenue.”
WEIGHING TRADITION
CMU men’s basketball coach Ernie Zeigler said he is in favor of expansion – only if it has benefits for conferences similar to the MAC.
“I think the general consensus (among coaches) is that it should be good because it’s going to give more access,” Zeigler said. “I talked to others who said, ‘Hey, it’s not broke, why are we fixing it?’ ”
One of those is CMU assistant coach Darren Kohne. He likes the tradition of the 65-team tournament and said the NCAA likely is trying to grab revenue from rival postseason tournaments such as the College Basketball Invitational and CollegeInsider.com Invitational.
“I don’t think I see a big improvement of the at-large bids,” Kohne said. “The NCAA wants to monopolize the money that the tournaments are making. The schools that are more in favor of this are the bigger schools. Most of all, the mid-major schools are not in huge favor of this.”
Kohne said expansion would also devalue college basketball’s postseason.
“If they’re trying to coexist with an expanded tournament, now all of a sudden you’ve got 175 teams making the postseason,” Kohne said. “That’s just way too many.”
One option that has been discussed is to grant NCAA bids to champions of each conference’s regular season and conference tournament. The current system only allows conference tournament champions to secure bids.
The 32-team National Invitation Tournament (NIT), which used to be a competitor but now is operated by the NCAA, likely would be eliminated if expansion is adopted.
“If it expands to 96, all it really is doing is combining the NIT and NCAA Tournaments ... With the interest the tournament has across the country, it would definitely be a win-win situation if it’s expanded,” Zeigler said.
